HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015/05/26 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
MAY 26, 2015
6:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION – Community Room
Discussion Items
1. 5 min. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – June 1 & June 8, 2015
2. 6:35 pm Presentation of Design Development Phase for Outdoor Rink/Multi-Use
Facility
3. 7:20 pm Southwest LRT Update
4. 7:40 pm Draft Strategies/Two Year Action Plan for 2015-2025 City Council Goals and
Priorities
5. 8:40 pm Update on Organizational Culture Initiatives
9:10 pm Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal)
9:15 p.m. Adjourn
Written Reports
6. April 2015 Monthly Financial Report
7. Update on SWLRT Station Area Form-Based Code
8. Inclusionary Housing Policy Review
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request.
To make arrangements, please call the Administration Department at
952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting.
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: May 26, 2015
Discussion Item: 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – June 1 and June 8, 2015
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for a
Special Study Session on June 1, 2015 and the regularly scheduled Study Session on June 8,
2015.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council agree with the agendas as proposed?
SUMMARY: At each study session approximately five minutes are set aside to discuss the next
study session agenda. For this purpose, attached please find the proposed discussion items for a
Special Study Session on June 1, 2015 and the regularly scheduled Study Session on June 8,
2015.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – June 1 & 8, 2015
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Administrative Services Office Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manger
Study Session Meeting of May 26, 2015 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Title: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – June 1 and June 8, 2015
Special Study Session, June 1, 2015 – 7:00 p.m.
Tentative Discussion Item
1. Shoreham TIF Application – Community Development (25 minutes)
Discuss Bader Development’s Application for TIF Assistance related to its Shoreham
Project.
Study Session, June 8, 2015 – 6:30 p.m.
Tentative Discussion Items
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
2. Form-Based Code Draft – Community Development (60 minutes)
The second draft of the form-based code will be presented to Council and the consultant will
provide an overview of how the Code was developed and highlight major points of the Code
including; building form requirements, the review process, and applicability to existing
properties within the proposed form-based district.
3. Technology Connected Community (from Draft Strategies/2 Year Action Plan) – Information
Resources (30 minutes)
A Technology Connected Community has been identified as one of the five high level
goals/priorities to be achieved over the next 10 years. Staff will present more detailed
information on specific strategies and action steps related to this goal/priority.
4. Southwest LRT Update – Community Development (30 minutes)
Update Council on current status of SWLRT Project and discuss items relevant to St. Louis
Park.
5. Oppidan TIF Application – Community Development (60 minutes)
Discuss Oppidan’s Application for TIF Assistance related to its 4900 Excelsior Project.
Communications/Meeting Check-In – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
Time for communications between staff and Council will be set aside on every study session
agenda for the purposes of information sharing.
End of Meeting: 9:40 p.m.
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: May 26, 2015
Discussion Item: 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Presentation of Design Development Phase for Outdoor Rink/Multi-Use Facility
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff desires direction on the policy question below.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council continue to support this project? If so staff
will move forward with the construction document phase of design for the project.
SUMMARY: At the City Council meeting of February 2, 2015, Council approved moving
forward with the next phase of the project and entering into a contract with RSP Architects for
the design development phase. The intent of this project is to build a facility that is a community
amenity used by many different types of activities including, but not limited to: hockey, soccer,
lacrosse, baseball, softball, football, farmers markets, concerts, pet expos, and wedding
receptions. The design development phase has provided the following deliverables:
• Building detailing sheets showing stair and rail design, door/window systems and
preliminary glass selections, interior finish material (not colors), preliminary mechanical
unit sizing, light fixture layouts, etc.
• A preliminary exterior material palette
• Refined cost estimates will be provided to substantiate the budget.
Moving forward to the next phase of the project, construction documents would provide the
following deliverables:
• Advance the design development drawings with technical details and notes that the project
will be built from.
• RSP will provide a final interior color palette and material selections.
• RSP will assist with the delineation of phasing and provide diagrammatic drawings as
appropriate.
• Bidding documents will be prepared.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The cost estimate for the construction
document phase of the project is $126,691. This would be paid from the park improvement fund
(includes donation made by the St. Louis Park Hockey Association). The total project estimate
increased by $199,078, mostly due to storm water retention system and refined roof design.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Revised Project Estimate
Project Renderings
Prepared by: Jason Eisold, Rec Center Manager
Reviewed by: Cynthia S. Walsh, Director of Operations and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of May 26, 2015 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Title: Presentation of Design Development Phase for Outdoor Rink/Multi-Use Facility
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: The Hockey Association and the City of St. Louis Park have a long history
of partnerships. They have participated financially in the east rink addition, the skate shop
renovation, and the public address system in the arena.
The intent for this proposed facility is to be a year-round community asset. Although it will be
primarily a skating rink, the idea is to use this facility during the spring, summer and fall for
other activities and events. Staff has met with the soccer, lacrosse, baseball, and track youth
associations and all have expressed interest in using the facility for practice when spring weather
does not allow outdoor fields to be used. The cost of turf is included in this estimate. This space
can also be used for other activities such as craft fairs, pet expos, dog training, concerts, farmers
markets, and garage sales.
CHANGES IN COST ESTIMATES: The following defines the notable scope of work changes
and cost estimates that increased $199,078 from schematic design to current design development
plans.
• Building expansion. More defined structure (footings and load bearing walls), roofing
material increase, added vestibule with aluminum doors, steel stud framing and
FRP/gypsum walls in storage room.
• Roof Structure. Additional steel supports spanning between columns, increased steel
attachment for fabric, changed fabric to accommodate increased wind pressures and
individually controlled lights.
• Asphalt. The drive lane/frontage road foot print was expanded.
• Site Utilities. It was necessary to add to the storm retention system; a trench that drains
between building and rink.
• Landscaping. Additional trees were added per code requirements. (47 trees at 2.5 " caliper
inch).
• Bleachers. The bleachers will accommodate 370 people.
• Scoreboard. Staff is hoping for financial assistance from the primary rink users to pay for
this.
The following are notable scope of work changes and cost estimates that decreased from the
schematic design to current design development plans.
• Retaining walls: Less square feet of wall than earlier anticipated.
• Earthwork: Cut and fill has been modified and decreased.
• Additional capacity to refrigeration: This was accounted for in both the outdoor rink
project and the inside rink refrigeration change over. We have taken this out of the outdoor
rink project and shown this in the indoor project since it needs to be done for the indoor
project.
NEXT STEPS: If there is an interest in continuing the design process, it is recommended that
staff move forward with RSP Architects to the construction document (CD) phase. It is estimated
that the CD phase will take six weeks, which would allow us to get the project out to bid by
August. Based on the estimating done by RJM, staff believes our estimates reflect the current
bidding climate. In addition, it is further recommended that staff begin to negotiate a final
agreement with the Hockey Association and finalize the relocation of the skate park.
BUDGET SUMMARY
ESTIMATE DATE:
PROJECT:
ARCHITECT:
DRAWING DATE:
5/15/2015 1/19/2015
DESCRIPTION Notes Estimate Estimate
Construction Costs
Building Expansion $1,234,374 $1,121,929
Roof Structure - Rink $2,190,083 $1,841,840
Ice Rink $549,945 $549,945
Dasher Boards $170,500 $178,500
Zamboni Room $63,000 $59,604
Zamboni Used machine $60,000 $60,000
Earthwork $147,171 $159,798
Asphalt $53,800 $35,658
Site Concrete $48,800 $48,800
Retaining Walls $22,647 $28,700
Site Utilities $126,315 $50,000
Landscaping $40,000 $15,000
Survey $3,500 $3,500
Bleachers 80' of Bleachers $79,400 $0
Scoreboard 6'x8' Wall Mounted $15,000 $0
General Conditions $120,000 $120,000
Temp Fencing $5,768 $5,768
General Liability Insurance $50,928 $28,414
Builders Risk Insurance $14,274 $7,893
Building Permit $63,347 $57,135
Bond $42,942 $39,450
Subtotal Construction Costs $5,101,793 $4,411,934
Escalation 0%$0 $132,358
Contingency 5%$255,090 $318,100
Contractor's Fee 2.95%$158,028 $143,441
A&E Design Fees $205,000 $205,000
Additional Capacity to Refrigeration $250,000
Turf $100,000 $175,000
SAC/WAC Fees Allowance $15,000 $15,000
Construction Estimate Total $5,834,911 $5,635,833
ALTERNATES:
No. 1:Add $94,876 $78,632
No. 2:Add $179,965 $142,773
No. 3:Add $16,021 $16,445
No. 4:Add $65,568 $114,638
Sub-Total:$356,430 $625,197
Total Budget:$6,191,341 $6,261,030
*Previous est. included refrigeration room that is included in Rec Center Refrigeration project. Value for this room is $400,714.
May 19, 2015
St. Louis Park Ice Sheet
RSP Architects
April 13, 2015
Expand Zamboni structure to create Nest viewing area.
Add a second level to Refrigeration Room.
Fire pit and structure.
Pool terrace extended slab. Concrete slab-on-grade.
Study Session Meeting of May 26, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: Presentation of Design Development Phase for Outdoor Rink/Multi-Use Facility Page 3
Study Session Meeting of May 26, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: Presentation of Design Development Phase for Outdoor Rink/Multi-Use Facility Page 4
Study Session Meeting of May 26, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: Presentation of Design Development Phase for Outdoor Rink/Multi-Use Facility
Page 5
Study Session Meeting of May 26, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: Presentation of Design Development Phase for Outdoor Rink/Multi-Use Facility
Page 6
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: May 26, 2015
Discussion Item:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Southwest LRT Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action at this time.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council wish to provide direction to Staff related to
the SWLRT cost increases and potential for changes to the project?
SUMMARY:
Potential Budget Impacts
Following the cost increases noted by the Southwest Project Office (SPO), the staff has provided
a list of options for reducing the overall project costs for SWLRT. The current list with
evaluation measures is attached; it is shown two ways: grouped by cost and grouped by
categories. On May 20, 2015, the Corridor Management Committee (CMC) discussed the list.
Additional discussion and consideration of the items is expected to take place on June 3rd, June
24th and July 1st. A recommendation will then be forwarded to the Metropolitan Council.
The items in St. Louis Park impact the park & ride and trail facilities, as shown on the table on
the next page (and on the attached lists). One item affecting St. Louis Park shown on the matrix
as “Additional Revenue – Service Delay” is the CP Rail Swap; it is shown to be infeasible
because of the time delay and associated cost that would result.
CMAQ Funding Request
On Wednesday May 20th, the Transportation Advisory Board of the Metropolitan Council
recommended funding the city’s request for $7 m. for the park & ride site at Beltline. This
recommendation will be considered by the full Metropolitan Council on June 17th. This will
allow a parking ramp versus surface parking at the Beltline Station and allow development to
occur. Staff is continuing to work with SPO staff on Joint Development for this site.
The regional trail request for trail grade separations by Hennepin County was also recommended
for funding.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Options for reducing costs along the line
may impact the work St. Louis Park is conducting around the station areas and on the Locally
Requested Capital Improvements (LRCIs).
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
SWLRT Potential Reduction Lists
SWLRT CMC Presentation
Prepared by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of May 26, 2015 (Item No. ) Page 2
Title: Southwest LRT Update
DISCUSSION
The following items are Potential Budget Impact Items for St. Louis Park. On Monday night,
staff can provide additional details for discussion on them
SLP Potential Budget Impact Items: Capital Cost Savings
14 Reduce Park & Ride to 2020 - Louisiana Reduce by 45
spaces (230 to 185 spaces) $250-300K
15 Delete Park & Ride - Louisiana Eliminates 230 spaces $0.7-1.2M
16 Delete Trail Underpass Under Freight Tracks at Louisiana
Station $550-600K
17 Reduce Park & Ride to 2020 - Beltline Eliminates 115
spaces (540 to 425 spaces)
$6-7M
18 Delete Park & Ride - Beltline Eliminates 540 spaces $2.8-3.3M
19 Use Hennepin Co. Regional Rail Authority Property for
Park & Ride - Beltline $550-600K
39 Delete Trail/Pedestrian Bridge Crossing of LRT and Freight
Railroad East of Beltline Station $13-14M
Draft Work in Progress: May 19, 2015 1
Southwest LRT Potential Scope/Budget Reductions By Scope Category
Key:
EP Eden Prairie
Mk Minnetonka
H Hopkins
SLP St Louis Park
Mp Minneapolis
MC Met Council
Column Definition
Capital Cost Savings Fully loaded, year of expenditure, includes contingency, right-of-way, and soft costs
Capital Cost Post Project Cost range for 2020 to 2030 implementation
Operational Cost Impact Increase or decrease to current project scope operational costs
LRT Ridership Impact (Total SWLRT Alignment)Reduction in net number to current project scope 2040 corridor ridership of 36,162
Y: Substantial change to scope item requiring Municipal Consent
N: No substantial change to scope item
Impact to New Starts Rating (Subject to FTA Review)Increase, decrease or no change to current overall project rating
FEIS: Include in FEIS
Other Additional: Additional documentation required
Y: Revenue service delayed beyond 2020
N: Revenue service in 2020
Note: All scope item metrics evaluated independently
Municipal Consent
Environmental Clearance
Revenue Service Delay
Study Session Meeting of May 26, 2015 (Item No. 3)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 3
Draft Work in Progress: May 19, 2015 2
Potential Budget Impact: Park-and-Rides
IDScope Item
Capital Cost SavingsCapital Cost Post ProjectOperational Cost Impact LRT Ridership Impact (Total SWLRT Alignment)Municipal ConsentImpact to New Starts RatingEnvironmental ClearanceRevenue Service DelayNotes
34 EP Delete Park & Ride - Mitchell $23-25M $25-33M Decrease (1070)N No change FEIS N Eliminates 665 spaces
1 EP Reduce Park & Ride to 2020 - Southwest Station $3-4M $4-5M Decrease (250)N N/A FEIS N Reduce by 165 spaces (450 to 285 spaces)
35 EP Delete Park & Ride - Southwest Station $13-15M $15-20M Decrease (600)N No change FEIS N Eliminates 450 spaces
2 EP Reduce Park & Ride to 2020 - Golden Triangle $350-400K $400-540K Decrease N/A N N/A FEIS N Reduce by 70 spaces (270 to 200 spaces)
3 EP Delete Park & Ride - Golden Triangle $1-2M $2-3M Decrease (400)N No change FEIS N Eliminates 270 spaces
4 EP Reduce Park & Ride to 2020 - City West $150-200K $200-270K Decrease N/A N N/A FEIS N Reduce by 45 spaces (160 to 115 spaces)
5 EP Delete Park & Ride - City West $0.9-1M $1-1.5M Decrease (300)N No change FEIS N Eliminates 160 spaces
6 Mk Reduce Park & Ride to 2020 - Opus $50-100K $100-140K Decrease N/A N N/A FEIS N Reduce by 20 spaces (100 to 80 spaces)
7 Mk Delete Park & Ride - Opus $550-600K $600-810K Decrease (150)N No change FEIS N Eliminates 100 spaces
37 H
Delete Park & Ride - Shady Oak $20-22M $22-30M Decrease (450)N No change FEIS N Assumes modified track alignment; Eliminates 265 spaces and full acquisition of
Hopkins Tech Center; Passenger drop-off accommodated on 5th St.
10 H Reduce Park & Ride to 2020 - Downtown Hopkins $200-250K $250-340K Decrease N/A N N/A FEIS N Reduce by 60 spaces (250 to 190 spaces)
36 H Delete Park & Ride - Downtown Hopkins $10-12M $12-16M Decrease (525)N No change FEIS N Eliminates 250 spaces
11 H Reduce Park & Ride to 2020 - Blake $850-900K $900K-1.2M Decrease N/A N N/A FEIS N Reduce by 35 spaces (240 to 205 spaces)
12 H Convert Ramp to Surface Lot and Reduce to 2020 - Blake $5.5-6.5M $6.5-8.5M Decrease N/A N N/A FEIS N Reduce by 35 spaces (240 to 205 spaces)
13 H Delete Park & Ride - Blake $6-7M $7-9.5M Decrease (450)N No change FEIS N Eliminates 240 spaces
14 SLP Reduce Park & Ride to 2020 - Louisiana $250-300K $300-400K Decrease N/A N N/A FEIS N Reduce by 45 spaces (230 to 185 spaces)
15 SLP Delete Park & Ride - Louisiana $0.7-1.2M $1.2-1.6M Decrease (425)N No change FEIS N Eliminates 230 spaces
17 SLP Reduce Park & Ride to 2020 - Beltline $550-600K $600-810K Decrease (250)N N/A FEIS N Eliminates 115 spaces (540 to 425 spaces)
18 SLP Delete Park & Ride - Beltline $6-7M $7-9.5M Decrease (900)N No change FEIS N Eliminates 540 spaces
19 SLP
Use Hennepin Co. Regional Rail Authority Property for Park &
Ride - Beltline $2.8-3.3M $3.3-4.5M No Impact N/A N N/A FEIS N
Range Total $50K-93M
Study Session Meeting of May 26, 2015 (Item No. 3)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 4
Draft Work in Progress: May 19, 2015 3
Potential Budget Impact: Stations
IDScope Item
Capital Cost SavingsCapital Cost Post ProjectOperational Cost Impact LRT Ridership Impact (Total SWLRT Alignment)Municipal ConsentImpact to New Starts RatingEnvironmental ClearanceRevenue Service DelayNotes
23 Mp
Delete Royalston Station and Associated Station Area
Pedestrian Improvements and 7th Street Bikeway $6-7M $7-9.5M Decrease (200)Y See table
below
Other
additional N
24 Mp Defer Royalston Station $4-5M $5-7M Decrease N/A N N/A FEIS N Build platform foundation and underground infrastructure
40 Mp
Delete Penn Station and Associated Station Area Pedestrian
Improvements $14-16M $16-22M Decrease (750)Y See table
below
Other
additional N
41 Mp Defer Penn Station $12-14M $14-19M Decrease N/A N N/A FEIS N Build platform foundation and underground infrastructure
21 Mp
Delete 21st Street Station and Associated Pedestrian
Connections to Cedar Lake $6-7M $7-9.5M Decrease (1,660)Y See table
below
Other
additional N
22 Mp Defer 21st Street Station $4-5M $5-7M Decrease N/A N N/A FEIS N Build platform foundation and underground infrastructure
20 Mp
Delete Vertical Circulation at West Lake Station; At-grade
Crossing of Freight Tracks Provided by Others $5-6M $6-8M Decrease (1,370)N N/A FEIS N Requires property acquisition or public easement north of the station
38 H Delete Joint Development at Blake $13-15M $15-20M Decrease N/A N N/A FEIS N
45 EP
End at Southwest Station $115-120M $120-160M Decrease (1,000)Y See table
below FEIS N
Increase Southwest Park and Ride structure by 679 spaces; ROW reduced by 11
acres, 0 relocations; no change in vehicles required. For 2020 Park and Ride build,
reduce 679 spaces to 409 and add $4-5 million to the capital cost savings.
46 EP
End at Eden Prairie Town Center (per PE Plans)$185-190M $190-235M Decrease (3,200)Y See table
below FEIS N
Change surface parking to 900 space structure at Golden Triangle Station. On-street
parking at Town Center; ROW reduced by 13.7 acres, 3 relocations; no change in
vehicles required. For 2020 Park and Ride build, reduce 900 spaces to 710 and add
$4-5 million to the capital cost savings.
47 EP
End at Eden Prairie Town Center (with station at Eden Road
and Flying Cloud Drive)$225-230M $230-270M Decrease (3,200)Y See table
below FEIS N
Shift station to Eden Road and Flying Cloud Drive. Change surface parking to 900
space structure at Golden Triangle Station; ROW reduced by 20.5 acres, 4
relocations; no change in vehicles required. For 2020 Park and Ride build, reduce
900 spaces to 710 and add $4-5 million to the capital cost savings.
48 EP
End at Golden Triangle $370-375M $375-505M Decrease (6,600)Y See table
below FEIS N
Change surface parking to 900 space structure; ROW reduced by 27.2 acres, 11
relocations; Reduce 7 vehicles. For 2020 Park and Ride build, reduce 900 spaces to
710 and add $4-5 million to the capital cost savings.
Range Total $4M - 426M
Impact to New Starts Rating Categories
Scope Item Cost Effectiveness
Index
Transit
Dependent
Riders
Developable
Acreage
Access to
Jobs
Population
served
Delete Royalston Station No change 99%94%95%89%
Delete Penn Station No change 97%99%99%96%
Delete 21st Street Station No change 97%100%100%99%
End at Southwest Station No change 96%95%97%98%
End at Eden Prairie Town Center (per PE Plans)No change 83%95%95%96%
End at Eden Prairie Town Center (with station at Eden Road
and Flying Cloud Drive)No change 83%95%95%96%
End at Golden Triangle No change 75%86%93%90%
Source: Met Council
Percent Retained by Category
Study Session Meeting of May 26, 2015 (Item No. 3)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 5
Draft Work in Progress: May 19, 2015 4
Potential Budget Impact: Landscaping, Art, and Furnishings
IDScope Item
Capital Cost SavingsCapital Cost Post ProjectOperational Cost Impact LRT Ridership Impact (Total SWLRT Alignment)Municipal ConsentImpact to New Starts RatingEnvironmental ClearanceRevenue Service DelayNotes
26 All Reduce Station Site Furnishings Project Wide by 50%$550-600K $600-810K Decrease N/A N N/A N/A N Reduce allowance for off-platform amenities (trash cans, bike parking, seating)
27 All Reduce Station Art Project Wide by 50%$1.8-2.3M $2.3-3M Decrease N/A N N/A N/A N Requires new procurement; potential for cost exposure due to change orders to
construction contracts
28 All Reduce Station Art Project Wide by 100%$4-4.5M $5-6.5M Decrease N/A N N/A N/A N
29 All Reduce Landscaping Project Wide by 50%$8-9M $9-12M Decrease N/A N N/A FEIS N
43 All Reduce Landscaping Project Wide by 75%$11-13M $13-17M Decrease N/A N N/A FEIS N Reduce by 75% - seeding (no irrigation)
Range Total $550K - 18M
Potential Budget Impact: Operations
IDScope Item
Capital Cost SavingsCapital Cost Post ProjectOperational Cost Impact LRT Ridership Impact (Total SWLRT Alignment)Municipal ConsentImpact to New Starts RatingEnvironmental ClearanceRevenue Service DelayNotes
44 MC Reduce Light Rail Vehicle Fleet Size (2)$10-12M $12-16M Increase N/A N N/A FEIS N Reduce by 2 vehicles from 32 to 30; impacts service reliability
32 MC
Reduce Operations and Maintenance Facility Scope - Store 30
Vehicles $8-9M $9-12.5M Increase N/A N N/A FEIS N Reduce light rail vehicle storage area in the OMF building and associated yard track
31 MC Modify Non-Revenue LRT Vehicle Storage Building at OMF $250-300K $300-500K Increase N/A N N/A N/A N Roof only, no enclosure
33
MC
H Modify Cold Storage Building at OMF $500K-1M $600-1.5M Increase N/A N N/A N/A N No enclosure
30 MC Replace Duct Bank with Cable Trough $8.5-9.5M N/A Decrease N/A N N/A N/A N For systems communications cabling; implementing
9 H Modify Track and Shady Oak Station $1.3-1.8M N/A No Impact N/A N N/A FEIS N Eliminates 43 storage unit relocations; implementing
25 Mp Modify LRT Bridge at Glenwood $1.5-2.5M N/A Decrease N/A N N/A FEIS N Implementing
Range Total $250K - 36M
Study Session Meeting of May 26, 2015 (Item No. 3)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 6
Draft Work in Progress: May 19, 2015 5
Potential Budget Impact: Trail Structures
IDScope Item
Capital Cost SavingsCapital Cost Post ProjectOperational Cost Impact LRT Ridership Impact (Total SWLRT Alignment)Municipal ConsentImpact to New Starts RatingEnvironmental ClearanceRevenue Service DelayNotes
8 Mk Remove 2 Pedestrian Underpasses at Opus Station $1-2M $2-3M Decrease N/A N N/A FEIS N Bus stop moves to Bren Road E.
16 SLP
Delete Trail Underpass Under Freight Tracks at Louisiana
Station $550-600K $600-810K Decrease N/A N N/A FEIS N Use existing trail access at Louisiana Ave
39 SLP
Delete Trail/Pedestrian Bridge Crossing of LRT and Freight
Railroad East of Beltline Station $13-14M $15-19M Decrease N/A N N/A FEIS N
Creates at-grade trail/pedestrian crossing of LRT and freight railroad; will increase
LRCI cost for proposed trail bridge over Beltline Boulevard, potentially jeopardizing
grant monies
42 Mp Delete N. Cedar Lake Trail Bridge at Penn Station $12-14M $14-19M Decrease N/A N N/A FEIS N Provide at-grade trail crossing at Penn Station
Range Total $550K - 31M
Potential Budget Impact: Additional Revenue Service Delay
IDScope Item
Capital Cost SavingsCapital Cost Post ProjectOperational Cost Impact LRT Ridership ImpactMunicipal ConsentImpact to New Starts RatingEnvironmental ClearanceRevenue Service DelayNotes
49
H
SLP
Delete CP Rail Swap $5-10M N/A Decrease N/A Y N/A Other
Additional Y
Build LRT north of existing Bass Lake Spur; remove southerly connector. Build LRT
bridge over freight west of West Lake Station; Louisiana platform on HCRRA
property; requires CP property acquisition at select locations. $60M in savings (fully
loaded) for construction and right-of-way; $50M added for schedule delay.
50 Mp
Delete Kenilworth Tunnel; LRT, freight tracks, and trail at-
grade -$5-0M N/A Decrease N/A Y N/A Other
Additional Y
Requires acquisition of 26 Cedar Lake Townhomes. $100M in savings (fully loaded)
for tunnel; $55M added for right-of-way, grade separation at Cedar Lake Parkway,
retaining walls, building demolition, and OCS poles; $50M added for schedule delay
Range Total -$5M - 10M
Study Session Meeting of May 26, 2015 (Item No. 3)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 7
Draft Work in Progress: May 19, 2015 1
Southwest LRT Potential Scope/Budget Reductions By Cost Category
Key:
EP Eden Prairie
Mk Minnetonka
H Hopkins
SLP St Louis Park
Mp Minneapolis
MC Met Council
Column Definition
Capital Cost Savings Fully loaded, year of expenditure, includes contingency, right-of-way, and soft costs
Capital Cost Post Project Cost range for 2020 to 2030 implementation
Operational Cost Impact Increase or decrease to current project scope operational costs
LRT Ridership Impact (Total SWLRT Alignment)Reduction in net number to current project scope 2040 corridor ridership of 36,162
Y: Substantial change to scope item requiring Municipal Consent
N: No substantial change to scope item
Impact to New Starts Rating (Subject to FTA Review)Increase, decrease or no change to current overall project rating
FEIS: Include in FEIS
Other Additional: Additional documentation required
Y: Revenue service delayed beyond 2020
N: Revenue service in 2020
Note: All scope item metrics evaluated independently
Municipal Consent
Revenue Service Delay
Environmental Clearance
Study Session Meeting of May 26, 2015 (Item No. 3)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 8
Draft Work in Progress: May 19, 2015 2
Potential Budget Impact Less Than $10 Million
IDScope Item
Capital Cost SavingsCapital Cost Post ProjectOperational Cost Impact LRT Ridership Impact (Total SWLRT Alignment)Municipal ConsentImpact to New Starts RatingEnvironmental ClearanceRevenue Service DelayNotes
1 EP Reduce Park & Ride to 2020 - Southwest Station $3-4M $4-5M Decrease (250)N N/A FEIS N Reduce by 165 spaces (450 to 285 spaces)
2 EP Reduce Park & Ride to 2020 - Golden Triangle $350-400K $400-540K Decrease N/A N N/A FEIS N Reduce by 70 spaces (270 to 200 spaces)
3 EP Delete Park & Ride - Golden Triangle $1-2M $2-3M Decrease (400)N No change FEIS N Eliminates 270 spaces
4 EP Reduce Park & Ride to 2020 - City West $150-200K $200-270K Decrease N/A N N/A FEIS N Reduce by 45 spaces (160 to 115 spaces)
5 EP Delete Park & Ride - City West $0.9-1M $1-1.5M Decrease (300)N No change FEIS N Eliminates 160 spaces
6 Mk Reduce Park & Ride to 2020 - Opus $50-100K $100-140K Decrease N/A N N/A FEIS N Reduce by 20 spaces (100 to 80 spaces)
7 Mk Delete Park & Ride - Opus $550-600K $600-810K Decrease (150)N No change FEIS N Eliminates 100 spaces
8 Mk Remove 2 Pedestrian Underpasses at Opus Station $1-2M $2-3M Decrease N/A N N/A FEIS N Bus stop moves to Bren Road E.
9 H Modify Track and Shady Oak Station $1.3-1.8M N/A No Impact N/A N N/A FEIS N Eliminates 43 storage unit relocations; implementing
10 H Reduce Park & Ride to 2020 - Downtown Hopkins $200-250K $250-340K Decrease N/A N N/A FEIS N Reduce by 60 spaces (250 to 190 spaces)
11 H Reduce Park & Ride to 2020 - Blake $850-900K $900K-1.2M Decrease N/A N N/A FEIS N Reduce by 35 spaces (240 to 205 spaces)
12 H Convert Ramp to Surface Lot and Reduce to 2020 - Blake $5.5-6.5M $6.5-8.5M Decrease N/A N N/A FEIS N Reduce by 35 spaces (240 to 205 spaces)
13 H Delete Park & Ride - Blake $6-7M $7-9.5M Decrease (450)N No change FEIS N Eliminates 240 spaces
14 SLP Reduce Park & Ride to 2020 - Louisiana $250-300K $300-400K Decrease N/A N N/A FEIS N Reduce by 45 spaces (230 to 185 spaces)
15 SLP Delete Park & Ride - Louisiana $0.7-1.2M $1.2-1.6M Decrease (425)N No change FEIS N Eliminates 230 spaces
16 SLP
Delete Trail Underpass Under Freight Tracks at Louisiana
Station $550-600K $600-810K Decrease N/A N N/A FEIS N Use existing trail access at Louisiana Ave
17 SLP Reduce Park & Ride to 2020 - Beltline $550-600K $600-810K Decrease (250)N N/A FEIS N Reduce by 115 spaces (540 to 425 spaces)
18 SLP Delete Park & Ride - Beltline $6-7M $7-9.5M Decrease (900)N No change FEIS N Eliminates 540 spaces
19 SLP
Use Hennepin Co. Regional Rail Authority Property for Park &
Ride - Beltline $2.8-3.3M $3.3-4.5M No Impact N/A N N/A FEIS N
20 Mp
Delete Vertical Circulation at West Lake Station; At-grade
Crossing of Freight Tracks Provided by Others $5-6M $6-8M Decrease (1,370)N N/A FEIS N Requires property acquisition or public easement north of the station
21 Mp
Delete 21st Street Station and Associated Pedestrian
Connections to Cedar Lake $6-7M $7-9.5M Decrease (1,660)Y See table
below
Other
additional N
22 Mp Defer 21st Street Station $4-5M $5-7M Decrease N/A N N/A FEIS N Build platform foundation and underground infrastructure
Study Session Meeting of May 26, 2015 (Item No. 3)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 9
Draft Work in Progress: May 19, 2015 3IDScope Item
Capital Cost SavingsCapital Cost Post ProjectOperational Cost Impact LRT Ridership Impact (Total SWLRT Alignment)Municipal ConsentImpact to New Starts RatingEnvironmental ClearanceRevenue Service DelayNotes
23 Mp
Delete Royalston Station and Associated Station Area
Pedestrian Improvements and 7th Street Bikeway $6-7M $7-9.5M Decrease (200)Y See table
below
Other
additional N
24 Mp Defer Royalston Station $4-5M $5-7M Decrease N/A N N/A FEIS N Build platform foundation and underground infrastructure
25 Mp Modify LRT Bridge at Glenwood $1.5-2.5M N/A Decrease N/A N N/A FEIS N Implementing
26 All Reduce Station Site Furnishings Project Wide by 50%$550-600K $600-810K Decrease N/A N N/A N/A N Reduce allowance for off-platform amenities (trash cans, bike parking, seating)
27 All Reduce Station Art Project Wide by 50%$1.8-2.3M $2.3-3M Decrease N/A N N/A N/A N Requires new procurement; potential for cost exposure due to change orders to
construction contracts
28 All Reduce Station Art Project Wide by 100%$4-4.5M $5-6.5M Decrease N/A N N/A N/A N
29 All Reduce Landscaping Project Wide by 50%$8-9M $9-12M Decrease N/A N N/A FEIS N
30 MC Replace Duct Bank with Cable Trough $8.5-9.5M N/A Decrease N/A N N/A N/A N For systems communications cabling; implementing
31 MC Modify Non-Revenue LRT Vehicle Storage Building at OMF $250-300K $300-500K Increase N/A N N/A N/A N Roof only, no enclosure
32 MC
Reduce Operations and Maintenance Facility Scope - Store 30
Vehicles $8-9M $9-12.5M Increase N/A N N/A FEIS N Reduce light rail vehicle storage area in the OMF building and associated yard
track
33
MC
H Modify Cold Storage Building at OMF $500K-1M $600-1.5M Increase N/A N N/A N/A N No enclosure
Range Total $50K-83M
Scope Item
Cost
Effectiveness
Index
Transit
Dependent
Riders
Developable
Acreage
Access to
Jobs
Population
served
Delete 21st Street Station No change 97%100%100%99%
Delete Royalston Station No change 99%94%95%89%
Source: Met Council
Impact to New Starts Rating Categories
Percent Retained by Category
Study Session Meeting of May 26, 2015 (Item No. 3)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 10
Draft Work in Progress: May 19, 2015 4
Potential Budget Impact Between $10 to $49 Million
IDScope Item
Capital Cost SavingsCapital Cost Post ProjectOperational Cost Impact LRT Ridership Impact (Total SWLRT Alignment)Municipal ConsentImpact to New Starts RatingEnvironmental ClearanceRevenue Service DelayNotes
34 EP Delete Park & Ride - Mitchell $23-25M $25-33M Decrease (1070)N No change FEIS N Eliminates 665 spaces
35 EP Delete Park & Ride - Southwest Station $13-15M $15-20M Decrease (600)N No change FEIS N Eliminates 450 spaces
36 H Delete Park & Ride - Downtown Hopkins $10-12M $12-16M Decrease (525)N No change FEIS N Eliminates 250 spaces
37 H
Delete Park & Ride - Shady Oak $20-22M $22-30M Decrease (450)N No change FEIS N Assumes modified track alignment; Eliminates 265 spaces and full acquisition of
Hopkins Tech Center; Passenger drop-off accommodated on 5th St.
38 H Delete Joint Development at Blake $13-15M $15-20M Decrease N/A N N/A FEIS N
39 SLP
Delete Trail/Pedestrian Bridge Crossing of LRT and Freight
Railroad East of Beltline Station $13-14M $15-19M Decrease N/A N N/A FEIS N
Creates at-grade trail/pedestrian crossing of LRT and freight railroad; will
increase LRCI cost for proposed trail bridge over Beltline Boulevard, potentially
jeopardizing grant monies
40 Mp
Delete Penn Station and Associated Station Area Pedestrian
Improvements $14-16M $16-22M Decrease (750)Y See table
below
Other
additional N
41 Mp Defer Penn Station $12-14M $14-19M Decrease N/A N N/A FEIS N Build platform foundation and underground infrastructure
42 Mp Delete N. Cedar Lake Trail Bridge at Penn Station $12-14M $14-19M Decrease N/A N N/A FEIS N Provide at-grade trail crossing at Penn Station
43 All Reduce Landscaping Project Wide by 75%$11-13M $13-17M Decrease N/A N N/A FEIS N Reduce by 75% - seeding (no irrigation)
44 MC Reduce Light Rail Vehicle Fleet Size (2)$10-12M $12-16M Increase N/A N N/A FEIS N Reduce by 2 vehicles from 32 to 30; impacts service reliability
Range Total $10-106M
Scope Item
Cost
Effectiveness
Index
Transit
Dependent
Riders
Developable
Acreage
Access to
Jobs
Population
served
Delete Penn Station No change 97%99%99%96%
Source: Met Council
Impact to New Starts Rating Categories
Percent Retained by Category
Study Session Meeting of May 26, 2015 (Item No. 3)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 11
Draft Work in Progress: May 19, 2015 5
Potential Budget Impact Greater Than $50 Million
IDScope Item
Capital Cost SavingsCapital Cost Post ProjectOperational Cost Impact LRT Ridership Impact (Total SWLRT Alignment)Municipal ConsentImpact to New Starts RatingEnvironmental ClearanceRevenue Service DelayNotes
45 EP
End at Southwest Station $115-120M $120-160M Decrease (1,000)Y See table
below FEIS N
Increase Southwest Park and Ride structure by 679 spaces; ROW reduced by 11
acres, 0 relocations; no change in vehicles required. For 2020 Park and Ride
build, reduce 679 spaces to 409 and add $4-5 million to the capital cost savings.
46 EP
End at Eden Prairie Town Center (per PE Plans)$185-190M $190-235M Decrease (3,200)Y See table
below FEIS N
Change surface parking to 900 space structure at Golden Triangle Station. On-
street parking at Town Center; ROW reduced by 13.7 acres, 3 relocations; no
change in vehicles required. For 2020 Park and Ride build, reduce 900 spaces to
710 and add $4-5 million to the capital cost savings.
47 EP
End at Eden Prairie Town Center (with station at Eden Road
and Flying Cloud Drive)$225-230M $230-270M Decrease (3,200)Y See table
below FEIS N
Shift station to Eden Road and Flying Cloud Drive. Change surface parking to
900 space structure at Golden Triangle Station; ROW reduced by 20.5 acres, 4
relocations; no change in vehicles required. For 2020 Park and Ride build,
reduce 900 spaces to 710 and add $4-5 million to the capital cost savings.
48 EP
End at Golden Triangle $370-375M $375-505M Decrease (6,600)Y See table
below FEIS N
Change surface parking to 900 space structure; ROW reduced by 27.2 acres, 11
relocations; Reduce 7 vehicles. For 2020 Park and Ride build, reduce 900 spaces
to 710 and add $4-5 million to the capital cost savings.
Range Total $115 - 375M
Scope Item
Cost
Effectiveness
Index
Transit
Dependent
Riders
Developable
Acreage
Access to
Jobs
Population
served
End at Southwest Station No change 96%95%97%98%
End at Eden Prairie Town Center (per PE Plans)No change 83%95%95%96%
End at Eden Prairie Town Center (with station at Eden Road
and Flying Cloud Drive)No change 83%95%95%96%
End at Golden Triangle No change 75%86%93%90%
Source: Met Council
Impact to New Starts Rating Categories
Percent Retained by Category
Study Session Meeting of May 26, 2015 (Item No. 3)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 12
Draft Work in Progress: May 19, 2015 6
Potential Budget Impact - Additional Revenue Service Delay
IDScope Item
Capital Cost SavingsCapital Cost Post ProjectOperational Cost Impact LRT Ridership Impact (Total SWLRT Alignment)Municipal ConsentImpact to New Starts RatingEnvironmental ClearanceRevenue Service DelayNotes
49
H
SLP
Delete CP Rail Swap $5-10M N/A Decrease N/A Y N/A Other
Additional Y
Build LRT north of existing Bass Lake Spur; remove southerly connector. Build
LRT bridge over freight west of West Lake Station; Louisiana platform on HCRRA
property; requires CP property acquisition at select locations. $60M in savings
(fully loaded) for construction and right-of-way; $50M added for schedule delay.
50 Mp
Delete Kenilworth Tunnel; LRT, Freight Tracks, and Trail At-
grade -$5-0M N/A Decrease N/A Y N/A Other
Additional Y
Requires acquisition of 26 Cedar Lake Townhomes. $100M in savings (fully
loaded) for tunnel; $55M added for right-of-way, grade separation at Cedar Lake
Parkway, retaining walls, building demolition, and OCS poles; $50M added for
schedule delay
Range Total -$5M - 10M
Study Session Meeting of May 26, 2015 (Item No. 3)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 13
1
Corridor Management Committee
May 20, 2015
Study Session Meeting of May 26, 2015 (Item No. 3)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 14
2
Today’s Topics
•Potential Cost Reduction
Evaluation
•Project Options Work Plan
Next Steps
Study Session Meeting of May 26, 2015 (Item No. 3)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 15
3
•Supportive of the LRT project; want to see it move
forward
•Keep LRT project budget at $1.653 B
•Tasked Project Office to:
Develop list of potential cost reductions
Maintain project’s New Starts competitiveness; Medium-
High overall project rating
Secure Full Funding Grant Agreement by Q4 2016
Add operating cost as metric to the cost reduction matrix
Comments Received From Project Partners at
May 6 Stakeholder Meetings
Study Session Meeting of May 26, 2015 (Item No. 3)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 16
4
Potential Cost Reduction
Evaluation
Study Session Meeting of May 26, 2015 (Item No. 3)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 17
5
Cost Reduction Approach
•Identify potential cost reductions through design
refinement of current scope
•Seek further cost reduction ideas from project
partners
•Evaluate potential cost reductions against SWLRT
Scoping Principles
Study Session Meeting of May 26, 2015 (Item No. 3)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 18
6
Scoping Principles
•Follow SWLRT Design Criteria, including criteria for
safety & security
•Positively impact (increase) FTA project rating,
ridership, equity, environmental benefits and
multimodal connections
•Minimal or no adverse impact to project schedule,
capital cost and operating cost
•Actively engage and encourage input from interested
and impacted stakeholders
Study Session Meeting of May 26, 2015 (Item No. 3)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 19
7
Cost Reduction Coordination
•Southwest Project Office compiled initial list of
potential cost reduction items
•Met with project partner staff to review list
•May 11
•May 15
•May 18
•Added items based on stakeholder input
•Analyzed items based on criteria
Study Session Meeting of May 26, 2015 (Item No. 3)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 20
8
Evaluation Matrix
Scope
Item
Capital
Cost
Savings
Capital Cost
Post Project
Operational
Cost Impact
LRT Ridership
Impact
Municipal
Consent
Impact to
New Starts
Rating
Environ-
mental
Clearance
Revenue
Service Delay
Total $341M
Study Session Meeting of May 26, 2015 (Item No. 3)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 21
9
Definitions
Column Definition
Capital Cost Savings Fully loaded, year of expenditure, includes contingency, right-of-way, and
soft costs
Capital Cost Post Project Cost range for 2020 to 2030 implementation
Operational Cost Impact Increase or decrease to current project scope operational costs
LRT Ridership Impact
(Total SWLRT Alignment)
Reduction in net number to current project scope 2040 corridor ridership of
36,162
Municipal Consent Y: Substantial change to scope item requiring Municipal Consent
N: No substantial change to scope item
Impact to New Starts Rating
(Subject to FTA Review) Increase, decrease, or no change to current overall project rating
Environmental Clearance Include in FEIS or requires additional environmental documentation
Revenue Service Delay Y: Revenue service delayed beyond 2020
N: Revenue service in 2020
Study Session Meeting of May 26, 2015 (Item No. 3)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 22
10
Park & Rides: Eden Prairie Capital Cost Savings Capital Cost Post Project Operational Cost Impact LRT Ridership Impact Municipal Consent Impact to New Starts Rating Environmental Clearance Delete - Mitchell $23-25M $25-33M Decrease (1,070) N N/C FEIS
Reduce to 2020 -
Southwest Station $3-4M $4-5M Decrease (250) N N/A FEIS
Delete - Southwest Station $13-15M $15-20M Decrease (600) N N/C FEIS
Reduce to 2020 - Golden
Triangle $350-400K $400-540K Decrease N/A N N/A FEIS
Delete - Golden Triangle $1-2M $2-3M Decrease (400) N N/C FEIS
Reduce to 2020 - City
West $150-200K $200-270K Decrease N/A N N/A FEIS
Delete - City West $0.9-1M $1-1.5M Decrease (300) N N/C FEIS
N/C = No Change
Study Session Meeting of May 26, 2015 (Item No. 3)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 23
11
Park & Rides: Minnetonka/Hopkins Capital Cost Savings Capital Cost Post Project Operational Cost Impact LRT Ridership Impact Municipal Consent Impact to New Starts Rating Environmental Clearance Reduce to 2020 - Opus $50-100K $100-140K Decrease N/A N N/A FEIS
Delete - Opus $550-600K $600-810K Decrease (150) N N/C FEIS
Delete - Shady Oak $20-22M $22-30M Decrease (450) N N/C FEIS
Reduce to 2020 – DT
Hopkins $200-250K $250-340K Decrease N/A N N/A FEIS
Delete – DT Hopkins $10-12M $12-16M Decrease (525) N N/C FEIS
Reduce to 2020 - Blake $850-900K $900K-1.2M Decrease N/A N N/A FEIS
Convert Ramp to Surface
Lot and Reduce to 2020 -
Blake
$5.5-6.5M $6.5-8.5M Decrease N/A N N/A FEIS
N/C = No Change
Study Session Meeting of May 26, 2015 (Item No. 3)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 24
12
Park & Rides: St. Louis Park Capital Cost Savings Capital Cost Post Project Operational Cost Impact LRT Ridership Impact Municipal Consent Impact to New Starts Rating Environmental Clearance Reduce to 2020 - Louisiana $250-300K $300-400K Decrease N/A N N/A FEIS
Delete - Louisiana $0.7-1.2M $1.2-1.6M Decrease (425) N N/C FEIS
Reduce to 2020 - Beltline $550-600K $600-810K Decrease (250) N N/A FEIS
Delete - Beltline $6-7M $7-9.5M Decrease (900) N N/C FEIS
N/C = No Change
Study Session Meeting of May 26, 2015 (Item No. 3)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 25
13
Stations Capital Cost Savings Capital Cost Post Project Operational Cost Impact LRT Ridership Impact Municipal Consent Impact to New Starts Rating Environmental Clearance Delete Royalston & Assoc
Ped Improvements, 7th
Street Bikeway
$6-7M $7-9.5M Decrease (200) Y See
table
Other
Add’l
Defer Royalston $4-5M $5-7M Decrease N/A N N/A FEIS
Delete Penn & Assoc Ped
Improvements $14-16M $16-22M Decrease (750) Y See
table
Other
Add’l
Defer Penn $12-14M $14-19M Decrease N/A N N/A FEIS
Delete 21st Street & Assoc
Ped Connections to Cedar
Lake
$6-7M $7-9.5M Decrease (1,660) Y See
table
Other
Add’l
Defer 21st Street $4-5M $5-7M Decrease N/A N N/A FEIS
Delete vertical circulation at
West Lake $5-6M $6-8M Decrease (1,370) N N/A FEIS
Delete JD at Blake $13-15M $15-20M Decrease N/A N N/A FEIS
Study Session Meeting of May 26, 2015 (Item No. 3)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 26
14
Stations Capital Cost Savings Capital Cost Post Project Operational Cost Impact LRT Ridership Impact Municipal Consent Impact to New Starts Rating Environmental Clearance End at Southwest Station $115-120M $120-160M Decrease (1,000) Y See
table FEIS
End at Eden Prairie Town
Center (per PE Plans) $185-190M $190-235M Decrease (3,200) Y See
table FEIS
End at Eden Prairie Town
Center (with station at Eden
Road/Flying Cloud Drive)
$225-230M $230-270M Decrease (3,200) Y See
table FEIS
End at Golden Triangle $370-375M $375-505M Decrease (6,600) Y See
table FEIS
Study Session Meeting of May 26, 2015 (Item No. 3)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 27
15
Stations: Impacts to Ratings Categories
Impact to New Starts Rating Categories Percent Retained by Category
Scope Item
Cost
Effective-
ness Index
Transit
Dependent
Riders
Developable
Acreage
Access to
Jobs
Pop.
served
Delete Royalston Station No change 99% 94% 95% 89%
Delete Penn Station No change 97% 99% 99% 96%
Delete 21st Street Station No change 97% 100% 100% 99%
End at Southwest Station No change 96% 95% 97% 98%
End at Eden Prairie Town Center (per
PE Plans) No change 83% 95% 95% 96%
End at Eden Prairie Town Center (with
station at Eden Rd/Flying Cloud Dr) No change 83% 95% 95% 96%
End at Golden Triangle No change 75% 86% 93% 90%
Study Session Meeting of May 26, 2015 (Item No. 3)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 28
16
Landscaping, Art and Furnishings Capital Cost Savings Capital Cost Post Project Operational Cost Impact LRT Ridership Impact Municipal Consent Impact to New Starts Rating Environmental Clearance Reduce Station Site
Furnishings Project Wide by
50%
$550-600K $600-810K Decrease N/A N N/A N/A
Reduce Station Art Project
Wide by 50% $1.8-2.3M $2.3-3M Decrease N/A N N/A N/A
Reduce Station Art Project
Wide by 100% $4-4.5M $5-6.5M Decrease N/A N N/A N/A
Reduce Landscaping
Project Wide by 50% $8-9M $9-12M Decrease N/A N N/A FEIS
Reduce Landscaping
Project Wide by 75% $11 -13M $13-17M Decrease N/A N N/A FEIS
Study Session Meeting of May 26, 2015 (Item No. 3)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 29
17
Operations Capital Cost Savings Capital Cost Post Project Operational Cost Impact LRT Ridership Impact Municipal Consent Impact to New Starts Rating Environmental Clearance Reduce LRV Fleet Size (2) $10-12M $12-16M Increase N/A N N/A FEIS
Reduce OMF Scope - Store
30 Vehicles $8-9M $9-12.5M Increase N/A N N/A FEIS
Modify Non-Revenue
Vehicle Storage Bldg at
OMF
$250-300K $300-500K Increase N/A N N/A N/A
Modify Cold Storage
building at OMF $500K-1M $600-1.5M Increase N/A N N/A N/A
Replace Duct Bank with
Cable Trough $8.5-9.5M N/A Decrease N/A N N/A N/A
Modify Track and Shady
Oak Station $1.3-1.8M N/A No Impact N/A N N/A FEIS
Modify LRT Bridge at
Glenwood $1.5-2.5M N/A Decrease N/A N N/A FEIS
Study Session Meeting of May 26, 2015 (Item No. 3)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 30
18
Trail Structures Capital Cost Savings Capital Cost Post Project Operational Cost Impact LRT Ridership Impact Municipal Consent Impact to New Starts Rating Environmental Clearance Remove 2 Pedestrian
Underpasses at Opus
Station
$1-2M $2-3M Decrease N/A N N/A FEIS
Delete Trail Underpass
Under Freight Tracks at
Louisiana Station
$550-600K $600-810K Decrease N/A N N/A FEIS
Delete Trail/Pedestrian
Bridge Crossing of LRT and
Freight Railroad East of
Beltline Station
$13-14M $15-19M Decrease N/A N N/A FEIS
Delete N. Cedar Lake Trail
Bridge at Penn Station $12-14M $14-19M Decrease N/A N N/A FEIS
Study Session Meeting of May 26, 2015 (Item No. 3)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 31
19
Additional Revenue Service Delay Capital Cost Savings Capital Cost Post Project Operational Cost Impact LRT Ridership Impact Municipal Consent Impact to New Starts Rating Environmental Clearance Delete CP Rail Swap $5-10M N/A Decrease N/A Y N/A Other
Add’l
Delete Kenilworth South
Tunnel; LRT, Freight
Tracks and Trail At-
Grade
-$5-0M N/A Decrease N/A Y N/A Other
Add’l
Study Session Meeting of May 26, 2015 (Item No. 3)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 32
20
Potential Cost Savings Range By Category
Potential Capital Cost Savings
Park and Rides $50K - $93M
Stations $4M - $426M
Landscape, art and furnishing $550K - $18M
Operations $250K - $36M
Trail Structures $550K - $31M
Additional Revenue Service Delay -$5M - $10M
Study Session Meeting of May 26, 2015 (Item No. 3)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 33
21
Potential Reductions: Minneapolis
20 Delete Vertical Circulation at West Lake Station; At-grade
Crossing of Freight Tracks Provided by Others
21 Delete 21st Street Station and Associated Pedestrian
Connections to Cedar Lake
22 Defer 21st Street Station
23 Delete Royalston Station and Associated Station Area
Pedestrian Improvements and 7th Street Bikeway
24 Defer Royalston Station
25 Modify LRT Bridge at Glenwood
40 Delete Penn Station and Associated Station Area
Pedestrian Improvements
41 Defer Penn Station
42 Delete N. Cedar Lake Trail Bridge at Penn Station
50 Delete Kenilworth Tunnel; LRT, Freight Tracks, and Trail
At-grade
Study Session Meeting of May 26, 2015 (Item No. 3)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 34
22
Potential Reductions: St. Louis Park
14 Reduce Park & Ride to 2020 - Louisiana
15 Delete Park & Ride - Louisiana
16 Delete Trail Underpass Under Freight Tracks at Louisiana
Station
17 Reduce Park & Ride to 2020 - Beltline
18 Delete Park & Ride - Beltline
19 Use Hennepin Co. Regional Rail Authority Property for Park &
Ride - Beltline
39 Delete Trail/Pedestrian Bridge Crossing of LRT and Freight
Railroad East of Beltline Station
49 Delete CP Rail Swap
Study Session Meeting of May 26, 2015 (Item No. 3)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 35
23
Potential Reductions: Hopkins/Minnetonka
Draft – Work in Progress
6 Reduce Park & Ride to 2020 - Opus
7 Delete Park & Ride - Opus
8 Remove 2 Pedestrian Underpasses at Opus Station
9 Modify Track and Shady Oak Station
10 Reduce Park & Ride to 2020 - Downtown Hopkins
11 Reduce Park & Ride to 2020 - Blake
12 Convert Ramp to Surface Lot - Blake
13 Delete Park & Ride - Blake
31 Modify Non-Revenue LRT Vehicle Storage Building at
OMF
32 Reduce Operations and Maintenance Facility Scope -
Store 30 Vehicles
33 Modify Cold Storage Building at OMF
36 Delete Park & Ride - Downtown Hopkins
37 Delete Park & Ride - Shady Oak
38 Delete Joint Development at Blake
49 Delete CP Rail Swap
Study Session Meeting of May 26, 2015 (Item No. 3)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 36
24
Potential Reductions: Eden Prairie
1 Reduce Park & Ride to 2020 - Southwest Station
2 Reduce Park & Ride to 2020 - Golden Triangle
3 Delete Park & Ride - Golden Triangle
4 Reduce Park & Ride to 2020 - City West
5 Delete Park & Ride - City West
34 Delete Park & Ride - Mitchell
35 Delete Park & Ride - Southwest Station
45 End at Southwest Station
46 End at Eden Prairie Town Center (per PE Plans)
47 End at Eden Prairie Town Center (with station at Eden Road and
Flying Cloud Drive)
48 End at Golden Triangle
Study Session Meeting of May 26, 2015 (Item No. 3)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 37
25
Project Options Work Plan Next
Steps
Study Session Meeting of May 26, 2015 (Item No. 3)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 38
26
Advisory Committees
•Community Advisory Committee
May 26: Potential cost reductions
June 30: Transit options review, construction cost
estimate review and potential cost reductions •Business Advisory Committee
May 27: Potential cost reductions
June 24: Transit options review, construction cost
estimate review and potential cost reductions
Study Session Meeting of May 26, 2015 (Item No. 3)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 39
27
Project Options Work Plan Next Steps
•June 3: Corridor Management Committee
•Continue discussion of potential cost reductions
Transit options review
Construction cost estimate review •June 24: Corridor Management Committee
Deliberation on potential cost reduction package
Technical capacity review •July 1: Corridor Management Committee
Recommendation on project scope and budget
Study Session Meeting of May 26, 2015 (Item No. 3)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 40
28
Project Options Work Plan Next Steps
•July 1: Met Council Committee of the Whole
Recommendation on project scope and budget •July 8: Met Council
Action on project scope and budget
Study Session Meeting of May 26, 2015 (Item No. 3)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 41
29
More Information
Online:
www.SWLRT.org
Email:
SWLRT@metrotransit.org
Twitter:
www.twitter.com/southwestlrt
Study Session Meeting of May 26, 2015 (Item No. 3)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 42
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: May 26, 2015
Discussion Item: 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Draft Strategies/Two Year Action Plan for 2015-2025 City Council Goals and
Priorities
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff desires to present and receive feedback from the Council
regarding the draft strategies and action steps proposed to help accomplish the goals set by the
Council at its January, 2015 Workshop.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Are the draft strategies and action steps in keeping with the
Councils expectations?
SUMMARY: On January 15/16 the City Council held its annual workshop with the primary
intent of reaching consensus on “Big Bowl” goals and priorities for the next ten years. A great
deal was accomplished and the Council came to general agreement on five goals/priorities. On
February 9 staff reviewed with and the Council confirmed that the five goals/priorities were in
keeping with the Councils intent from the Workshop. Attached is the document reviewed with
the Council at the study session.
At that same February 9 meeting staff indicated it would take about 90 days to develop specific
strategies and a two year action plan to begin to address the Council’s goals/priorities. The 90
day period has now elapsed and staff desires to present to the Council a draft of the strategies and
actions steps. I would underscore that these are DRAFT’s and still subject to refinement.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable at this time
VISION CONSIDERATION: All areas of the City Councils five original Strategic
Directions are impacted by the priorities/goals developed at the Council Workshop.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: 2/9/15 Outline of Goals & Priorities Reviewed w/ Council
Draft Strategies & 2-Year Action Plan for Each of 5 Goals
& Priorities
Prepared by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Priorities/Goals – 2015 to 2025
Priority/Goal - Redevelopment around the three SWLRT Stations is maximized to the fullest
extent possible.
Why is this important? – The SWLRT project presents an incredible opportunity not
afforded to most other cities. If implemented correctly, St. Louis Park will experience significant
economic growth and vitality while providing additional transportation options to those that
live or work here. It is imperative that we take advantage of this unique opportunity through a
thoughtful and collaborative planning and implementation process.
Strategies to Achieve Goal – (to be developed by staff)
Two Year Action Plan – (to be developed by staff)
Priority/Goal – St. Louis Park is a leader in environmental stewardship, sustainability and
resiliency.
Why is this important? – Because it’s the necessary and smart thing to do. Being
stewards of the environment is the responsibility of everybody. Preventing or limiting the
impact of climate change, the depletion of natural resources and the degradation of our water
and air require constant attention and a commitment to change. The City is uniquely
positioned to effect positive change at the local level through programs, initiatives and
community education.
Strategies to Achieve Goal – (to be developed by staff)
Two Year Action Plan – (to be developed by staff)
Priority/Goal – St. Louis Park is a technology connected community
Why is this important? – Broadband speed and capacity requirements continue to grow
as technology and the Internet continue to evolve. A community that is connected by a very
robust and comprehensive Broadband system will set itself apart and be better able to promote
economic growth, innovation and community development. High speed Broadband enables the
exchange of information in many different forms and is vital to high-tech and medical industry
growth, and to the delivery of services in education, health, government, public safety, and for
overall quality of life. Given the significant amount of fiber infrastructure in place that is owned
by the City, we are uniquely situated to take advantage of the digital economy.
Study Session Meeting of May 26, 2015 (Item No. 4)
Title: Draft Strategies/2-Year Action Plan for 2015-2025 City Council Goals & Priorities Page 2
Strategies to Achieve Goal – (to be developed by staff)
Two Year Action Plan – (to be developed by staff)
Priority/Goal – St. Louis Park has top ranked schools, a well maintained and diverse housing
stock, and strong, vibrant neighborhoods.
Why is this important? – These items are critical ingredients for insuring that St. Louis
Park continues to be a highly desirable place for people to live and invest themselves in the
community.
Strategies to Achieve Goal – (to be developed by staff)
Two Year Action Plan – (to be developed by staff)
Priority/Goal – St. Louis Park has high quality community amenities and facilities
Why is this important? – High quality parks, open space and other community facilities
and amenities are building blocks for insuring a high quality of life and making St. Louis Park
competitive in the marketplace as a great place to live.
Strategies to Achieve Goal – (to be developed by staff)
Two Year Action Plan – (to be developed by staff)
Important Note - The five priorities and goals noted above are intended to articulate and
provide direction to staff on those things the Council feels will have the most powerful/positive
impact on the St. Louis Park community by 2025. This will allow staff to orient work plans and
resources accordingly. These five priorities/goals will be reviewed annually to make sure they
are still relevant, and course corrections will be made by the Council as necessary. Finally – Staff
should recognize that above all else it must continue to provide collaborative, high quality and
responsive services to insure that St. Louis Park is the most desirable place to live, work and do
business.
Study Session Meeting of May 26, 2015 (Item No. 4)
Title: Draft Strategies/2-Year Action Plan for 2015-2025 City Council Goals & Priorities Page 3
City Council Priorities/Goals 2015 to 2025:
Strategies and Work Plan for 2015-2017
Leader: Kevin Locke and Meg McMonigal
Goal: Redevelopment around the three SWLRT stations is maximized to the fullest extent possible.
Why is this important? The SWLRT project presents an incredible opportunity not afforded to
most other cities. If implemented correctly, St. Louis Park will experience significant economic
growth and vitality while providing additional transportation options to those that live or work
here. It is imperative that we take advantage of on this unique opportunity through a thoughtful
and collaborative planning and implementation process.
Vision Consideration:
• St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.
Strategies:
(What are the methods and
means you will take to
achieve this goal?)
Two Year Action Plan:
(What steps, tools or tactics are you going to
take to achieve this strategy?)
Timeline: Resources:
1. Encourage and
facilitate high
quality
redevelopment, re-
investment and new
investment in the
SWLRT station areas
consistent with the
principles of Livable
Communities, TOD,
the City’s station
area plans, corridor
master plan and
design guidelines.
Tools & Programs
• Strategic acquisitions
• TIF policy
• Small business assistance & support
• Redevelopment Projects
• Community & Development
Opportunity Marketing
• Adopt Form Based Code
On-going
activity
Financial
TIF,
abatements,
grants,
land sales,
special
assess-
ments &
special
service
districts
People
SWLRT
Team
Leader
SWLRT
Team
CD Dept
Engineering
Consultants
Hennepin
County
SPO/Met
Council
Current Development projects
• Beltline Station Joint Development
project, CMAQ Grant
• Wooddale Station Redevelopment
projects (PLACE/EDA , EDA/Hennepin
Co. sites)
• Other Corridor locations (exam:
Shoreham)
’15-‘18
Future Development Projects
Redevelopment opportunities throughout the
corridor near our stations and the stations in
neighboring cities.
On-going
Study Session Meeting of May 26, 2015 (Item No. 4)
Title: Draft Strategies/2-Year Action Plan for 2015-2025 City Council Goals & Priorities Page 4
Removal of barriers to
redevelopment/investment in particular in the
Louisiana Station Area – removal of Switching
Wye, land for connection from station to
Methodist Hospital
’16-‘18 MCWD
Three Rivers
Park District
Hsg
Agencies
Developers,
businesses,
non-profits
2. Construction of
infrastructure in
support of SWLRT
and Station Area
Development.
LRCIs
• Beltline Station area improvements
(“backage road”, Lynn intersection &
signal, CSAH 25/Beltline intersection
improvements, P&R access).
• Xenwood Extension
• “Sullivan trail”
Eng/CD
Design of LRCIs ’15-‘16 Eng/CD
Construction of LRCIs ’17-‘19 Eng/PW
CSAH 25 Redesign as blvd.
Conceptual to final design
Phased construction
’15-’17?
’17-‘27
Eng/CD
Infrastructure capacity needs
Evaluation of public improvement needed to
accommodate new development – including
utilities, streets, parking, storm water
management (including regional ponds), Wi-Fi
and fiber optic cabling
’15-16 Eng/CD
Connectivity Improvements
• Pedestrian, transit and bicycle
connectivity improvements aimed -
• at maximizing walkability, connectivity
and reduction in need for cars in
station areas,
• connecting the land uses to one
another, the station platforms, the
broader community, open space and
other area amenities.
See
Connect
the Park
schedule
Eng/CD/PR
Amenity improvements - streetscapes, plazas,
gathering places, public art, open/green space,
water features, recreational facilities,
On-going CD/PR/Eng
Study Session Meeting of May 26, 2015 (Item No. 4)
Title: Draft Strategies/2-Year Action Plan for 2015-2025 City Council Goals & Priorities Page 5
3. Work cooperatively
in partnership with
the SPO and SW
Corridor
Community Works,
sister SW Corridor
Cities and
participating
agencies on the
design and
implementation of
the SWLRT project
itself and related
projects.
Technical design support
Timely response to SPO proposed SWLRT
designs and requests for input
’15-‘19 CD/Eng/SLP
Project Management
• Participation in TPAC, Advanced
Design Process, TIC, TIC Principles,
Housing Subcommittee, Funding
Committee, ad hoc issue related
meetings and discussions.
• Participation in CAC and BAC.
• Work with public art committee for art
at the station.
• Participation in CMC and SW Corridor
Community Works Steering
Committee
’15-‘19 Staff/CC/Res
idents &
Businesses
City Support
• City sign off on SWLRT and LRCI
designs at 60% and 90% completion
• commitment to fund and construction
’15-‘19 SLP
West Lake Mobility Plan
SLP participation in Mpls planning effort
’15-16 Eng/CD
Housing Gaps Analysis
’14-16 CD
Bicycle Facilities Plan
’14-16 CD/Eng
Joint Marketing Plan
’15-‘25 CD/IR
4. Prepare an overall
master plan for the
SWLRT Station
Areas to guide
development,
infrastructure
investments and
amenity
improvements,
evaluate and
establish future
infrastructure needs
• Prepare Scope of work and schedule
for Master Plan with a particular focus
on the “Public Realm”, the
connections between the various
elements and development projects
within the corridor.
• Prepare RFP, solicit proposals and
select consultant to preparing the SW
Corridor Master Plan
• Prepare Master Plan
• Incorporate Master Plan into the City’s
‘15
‘15
’15-‘16
CD/Eng
Study Session Meeting of May 26, 2015 (Item No. 4)
Title: Draft Strategies/2-Year Action Plan for 2015-2025 City Council Goals & Priorities Page 6
Possible difficulties:
1. Tight time frames for decisions
2. Work overload/ staffing needs
3. Insufficient funds for LRCIs, infrastructure improvements and redevelopment efforts
• 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
• Adopt Form Based Code
5. Market SLP’s SWLRT
Corridor
Development
opportunities and
small business
support and
assistance
programs.
• Prepare marketing materials
highlighting potential redevelopment
opportunities.
• Solicit development proposals for sites
under direct SLP control or sites where
SLP partners with other public entities
or private property owners.
• Market the City’s Small Business
Assistance programs to existing
businesses
‘15
’15 and
beyond
On-going
CD
6. Pursue a robust
community
outreach program
to garner input,
support and
understanding from
the neighborhoods,
property owners,
residents and
business owners in
the SW Corridor
specifically and the
Community in
general.
• Coordinate with and Support SPO
Outreach
• Prepare a communication plan
• Prepare a community outreach/input
plan
• Identify key CC/EDA decision
milestones
’15 – ‘19
On-going
’15 and
beyond
IR/CD/Eng
CD/IR
IR/CD/Eng
CD/Eng/City
Manager/CC
7. Aggressively pursue
funding
opportunities for
infrastructure,
redevelopment,
affordable housing,
environmental
remediation, pre-
development
planning and
analysis
• Prepare cost estimates and budgets
for key project elements.
• Maintain and cultivate relationships
with funding partners.
• Develop partnerships and
commitments from other public and
private entities to assist in funding
SWLRT related projects.
On-going CD/ENG
Study Session Meeting of May 26, 2015 (Item No. 4)
Title: Draft Strategies/2-Year Action Plan for 2015-2025 City Council Goals & Priorities Page 7
City Council Priorities/Goals 2015 to 2025:
Strategies and Work Plan for 2015-2017
Leader: Jim Vaughan
Goal: St. Louis Park is a leader in environmental stewardship, sustainability, and resiliency.
Why is this important? Because it’s the necessary and smart thing to do. Being stewards of the
environment is the responsibility of everybody. Preventing or limiting the impact of climate
change, the depletion of natural resources and degradation of our water and air require
constant attention and a commitment to change. The City is uniquely positioned to effect
positive change at the local level through programs, initiative and community education.
Vision Consideration:
• St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. We will increase
environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business.
Strategies:
(What are the methods and
means you will take to achieve
this goal?)
Two Year Action Plan:
(What steps, tools or tactics are
you going to take to achieve this
strategy?)
Timeline: Resources:
Establish Business/Multi-family
Recycling Program
• Define Metrics for
Business/Multi-family
Recycling Goals
• Communication Plan
• Research other similar
programs
• Partner with Hennepin
County
2015 Staff / Henn
County/MPCA
Increase Residential Organics
Program participation to 20%
(100% growth from today’s
participation rate)
• Education/promotion
• Communications plan
• Research fee structure to
determine if change
needed
2015-2016 Staff
Increase Tree Canopy by 20% • Attain Grants
• CIP tree Planting
• EAB, DED control and
other invasive pest
control
• ree Sale
• Partnership with Tree
Trust
2015-2024 Staff
Create a Zero Waste Policy for
City (Solid waste moving toward
zero)
• Compile sample plans
• ID City Events for
2025 Staff/ ESC
Study Session Meeting of May 26, 2015 (Item No. 4)
Title: Draft Strategies/2-Year Action Plan for 2015-2025 City Council Goals & Priorities Page 8
implementation
• Create timeline for
research, policy
development, and
phased implementation
• Protocol to follow
Multifamily Move Out
Recycling/Reuse program
• Work with Hennepin
County to promote their
pilot program and
identify
properties/candidates
for pilots
• Determine pilot’s
viability for permanent
program in SLP
• Identify City role in
program (promotion or
coordination)
• Partner with Goodwill,
local recyclers and others
2019 Staff/ Henn Cty
Create a Recycling/Reuse Center
in SLP (large-scale)
• Find building/land for
site
• Locate a site for pilot
• Research and determine
options for reuse center
(city run, non-profit run,
etc.
2015-2017 Staff
Implement using renewable
energy sources for City
organization
• Partnerships with
renewable providers ,
such as Solar Gardens
and Windsource
• Hybrid and electric
vehicles
2016 Staff & E & S
Commission
Continue to decrease impervious
surface in SLP
• Continue green building
initiatives
• Purchase key land for
green corridor or
stormwater function
• Continue to promote
high-density building
• Living Streets
• MIDs (minimal impact
design)
2025 Staff &
Engineering
and CD
Study Session Meeting of May 26, 2015 (Item No. 4)
Title: Draft Strategies/2-Year Action Plan for 2015-2025 City Council Goals & Priorities Page 9
Education of past, current and
future environmental City
stewardship initiatives and
programs
• Create communications
plan with IR Department
for any old, existing and
new initiative
2016 Staff
Create 2 additional Community
Gardens
• Identify park/open space
for gardens
• Budget as CIP item
• Plan for increased
Maintenance
2015-2017 Staff
Study Session Meeting of May 26, 2015 (Item No. 4)
Title: Draft Strategies/2-Year Action Plan for 2015-2025 City Council Goals & Priorities Page 10
City Council Priorities/Goals 2015 to 2025:
Work Plan for 2015-2017
Name: Clint Pires 3.0
Goal: St. Louis is a technology connected community.
Why is this important? Broadband speed and capacity requirements continue to grow as
technology and the Internet continue to evolve. A community that is connected by a very
robust and comprehensive Broadband system will set itself apart and be better able to promote
economic growth, innovation and community development. High speed Broadband enables
the exchange of information in many different forms and is vital to high-tech and medical
industry growth, and to the delivery of services in education, health, government, public safety
and for overall quality of life. Given the significant amount of fiber infrastructure in place that
is owned by the City, we are uniquely situated to take advantage of the digital economy.
Vision Consideration:
• St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.
Strategies:
(What are the methods and means
you will take to achieve this goal?)
Two Year Action Plan:
(What steps, tools or tactics
are you going to take to
achieve this strategy?)
Timeline: Resources:
Research Strategic Options • Learn from other
existing efforts
• Engage consultant
• Develop baseline of
existing SLP
Broadband
capabilities
5/15 – 12/15 CIO,
consultant, city
staff*
Support School / Community
Education Initiatives
• Understand public
and private school
strategic plans and
initiatives;
• City and school staff
and officials meet
and confer on
potential
collaborations using
technology;
• City and schools
draft proposals to
support learning
and other school
initiatives;
• City, schools,
Community Ed
5/15 – 12/17 CIO, school,
Community Ed
and city staff*
and officials,
facilitated
process,
financial and
human
resources
Study Session Meeting of May 26, 2015 (Item No. 4)
Title: Draft Strategies/2-Year Action Plan for 2015-2025 City Council Goals & Priorities Page 11
jointly support
additional classes to
help public make
best uses of
technology;
• Identify resource
needs and sources
to implement.
Encourage More Private Market
Consumer Choices
• Facilitate process,
opportunities for
providers;
• Seek out interested
providers;
• Level playing field
partnerships;
• Lead through
encouraging,
courting providers
(CenturyLink,
Comcast, USI,
Google, etc.).
5/15 – 12/17 CIO,
streamlined
processes,
consultant, city
staff*
Integrate New Private Carrier
Technology Infrastructure (e.g.,
mini-cell towers) into Community
• Learn about
evolving design of
wired and wireless
infrastructure;
• Review impacts on
existing
infrastructure,
zoning, and
neighborhoods;
• With stakeholder
input, propose
modifications to
codes to integrate
new designs in an
acceptable fashion.
5/15 – 12/17 CIO, city staff,
private carriers,
consultant,
community
stakeholders
Support or Build Broadband Public
Related Infrastructure / Target
Private Development Opportunities
• Collaborate with
Engineering, O&R,
CD to identify CIP
projects and other
related public plans
/ opportunities to
co-build broadband
infrastructure;
• Identify likely
private
development
projects and areas,
and plan related
5/15 – 12/17 CIO, city staff*,
planning crystal
ball, funds,
interagency
collaboration
Study Session Meeting of May 26, 2015 (Item No. 4)
Title: Draft Strategies/2-Year Action Plan for 2015-2025 City Council Goals & Priorities Page 12
* city staff includes usually includes some combination of IR, CD, Engineering, O&R, and Inspections.
infrastructure
accordingly.
Support Community Technology
Applications for Enhanced Livability
• Identify how
residents,
businesses, guests
want to use
technology to
improve livability;
• Engage futurists to
forecast
technologies and
uses;
• Consider desirable
economic
development and
uses; focus a study
on Louisiana / 7 for
possible regional
tech/medical/incub
ator hub;
• From identified
uses, support
development of
aligned technology
infrastructure and
applications.
5/15 – 12/17 CIO, futurists,
community
input process,
EDA, city staff*,
Greater MSP
Maximize Speed of Broadband
Deployment
• Lease available
public broadband
related facilities.
5/15 – 12/15 CIO, Admin
Services, City
Attorney
Enhance Private Development
Broadband Readiness
• Establish formal
requirements to
make new
development /
significant
redevelopment
ready for latest
broadband
technologies.
5/15 – 6/16 CIO, city staff*,
City Council,
regulatory
agencies,
private
stakeholders
Study Session Meeting of May 26, 2015 (Item No. 4)
Title: Draft Strategies/2-Year Action Plan for 2015-2025 City Council Goals & Priorities Page 13
Possible Difficulties:
• Staff resources to manage initiatives.
• Inadequate processes to make things happen when the opportunities strike.
• Funds to build infrastructure, support of other initiatives.
• Inaccurate private or public broadband investment decisions.
• Ability to influence the private market decisions.
• Changing leadership, Council policies / philosophies over time.
• Changing technologies that obsolete existing efforts and investments.
Possible Initial Suggested Participants (draft):
• City Manager
• City CIO
• City Councilmember
• SLP Public Schools Superintendent
• SLP Public Schools IT Director
• SLP Public Schools Board Member
• Discover St. Louis Park Member
• SLP Business Council Member
• Greater MSP Representative
• Minnesota High Tech Association
• Health Partners / Methodist / Park Nic CEO
• Health Partners / Methodist / Park Nic CIO
• Telecommunications Advisory Commission Member
• Facilitator and / or Consultant
Other stakeholders / subject matter experts invited as we move from strategy refinement to plan
specifics, and as needed.
Study Session Meeting of May 26, 2015 (Item No. 4)
Title: Draft Strategies/2-Year Action Plan for 2015-2025 City Council Goals & Priorities Page 14
City Council Priorities/Goals 2015 to 2025:
Strategies and Work Plan for 2015-2017
Leader: Marney Olson
Goal: St. Louis Park has top ranked schools, a well maintained and diverse housing stock, and
strong, vibrant neighborhoods.
Why is this important? These items are critical ingredients for ensuring that St. Louis Park
continues to be a highly desirable place for people to live and invest themselves in the
community.
Vision Consideration:
• St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.
• St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and diverse housing stock.
Strategies:
(What are the methods
and means you will take
to achieve this goal?)
Two Year Action Plan:
(What steps, tools or tactics are you going
to take to achieve this strategy?)
Timeline: Resources:
Goal/Priority: St. Louis Park has top ranked schools
Promote Safe Schools
through partnership with
the School District
School Liaison Positions
- New School Liaison position focusing
on school safety and lockdown
procedures
- Existing School Liaisons including
DARE (elementary), Middle School
and High School
- Police Sergeant meet with School
Liaisons and Principals to determine
what support they need to be
successful
- Police Department work with Schools
to determine safety needs and
respond as needed
- Safe Routes to School: promote
bike/walk days
- Safety Camp
2015
Ongoing
2015
Ongoing
Grant funded
position
Police
Department
School Liaisons
Recreation Staff
Continue to work
cooperatively with the
School District and
support joint community
efforts and programs
- Children First
- Meadowbrook Collaborative
- Joint Facilities and programs
- Summer programs
- Community Education partnership
- Family Services Collaborative
- Friends of the Arts
- Partner on events with the School
District that support our young
people, immigrant population, and
other community members such as
Ongoing
City Staff are the
primary
resources for
these ongoing
partnerships
and
collaborations.
In some
instances such
funds are also
allocated to
Study Session Meeting of May 26, 2015 (Item No. 4)
Title: Draft Strategies/2-Year Action Plan for 2015-2025 City Council Goals & Priorities Page 15
the New Americans Academy.
Continue to keep lines of
communication open so we continue
to have strong partnerships as new
opportunities arise.
these
community
efforts.
Collaborate with the
School District on
community
communication and
coordination efforts
- Boards and Commissions: School
District appoints member to City
boards and commissions and City
representation on the Community
Education Advisory Council
- Hold Annual City and School Board
joint meeting
- City runs the School Board elections
- Joint Marketing including the
City/School Calendar
- Explore more comprehensive
marketing effort with School District
- Share information and work together
to address City and School population
growth
- Real Estate Forum (biannual)
- Community Residential Survey:
include questions from School District
on City survey and vice versa.
Ongoing
2016
2016
Staff time is the
primary
resource along
with
appropriate
budgeting.
Goal/Priority: St. Louis Park has a well maintained and diverse housing stock
Preserve, maintain and
improve existing housing
stock in St. Louis Park
- Update International Property
Maintenance Code
- City Wide Housing Survey
- Point of Sale Inspection
- Rental Inspections and Licensing
- Hold Annual Clean Up days for SLP
Residents
- Explore opportunities for a new
recycling drop off program
- Commercial Property Surveys
(including apartments)
- Continue to promote housing rehab
programs such as Move up in the
Park, low interest rate loans, and low
income programs
- Evaluate effectiveness of existing
programs
2015
2016
Ongoing
2015
2017
Ongoing
Resources
include
Inspections,
Housing and
Operations &
Recreation Staff.
Housing rehab
programs are
funded through
the Housing
Rehab budget
and low income
programs
through CDBG.
Promote and facilitate a
balanced and enduring
housing stock through
Policy
- Adoption of Inclusionary Housing
Policy
- Adoption of SWLRT Regional Housing
Plan
- Housing Goals
2015 Staff
Support housing
programs that have a
positive impact on the
rental and owner
- SPARC (rental coalition for owners
and managers)
- Crime Free Housing
- Construction Management Plan
Ongoing,
quarterly
Ongoing
Staff
Study Session Meeting of May 26, 2015 (Item No. 4)
Title: Draft Strategies/2-Year Action Plan for 2015-2025 City Council Goals & Priorities Page 16
residents in St. Louis Park (CMP)
- Evaluate CMP for non- Single Family
projects
2015
Continue to utilize Rental
Assistance Programs to
offer housing options for
low income renters in
our community
- Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher
Program
- Public Housing
- Shelter Plus Care
Staff and
Housing
Authority
Budget
Goals/Priorities: St. Louis Park has strong, vibrant neighborhoods
Strengthen
neighborhoods by
engaging residents
through Community
Outreach and
Volunteering
Community Outreach - Citywide
- Neighborhood Meetings with the
Police Department and each
neighborhood
- Increase outreach to the rental
community and multi-family residents
(condos and rental) to build better
connections at the Neighborhood and
City level utilizing SPARC,
Neighborhood Associations, and
Community Liaison
- National Night Out
- Joint Community Police Partnership
position and outreach
- Address neighborhood issues related
to Hwy 100 reconstruction as they
arise
- Engage residents in Public Process for
various projects, developments, etc.
- Health in the Park
Community Outreach – Neighborhoods
- Plan by Neighborhood as part of
City’s Comprehensive Plan
- Block Captain/Neighborhood Watch
Program
- Promote and utilize Nextdoor and
Social Media
- Neighborhood Associations
- Neighborhood Grant
- Analyze effectiveness of current
neighborhood grant program
Volunteering
- Adopt a Spot, Park, Garden
- Pick up the Park
- Hydrant Heroes
- CERT
- Police Reserves
- Block Captains and Neighborhood
Leaders
- Community Events
2015-2016
2015-2017
and beyond
Annually
Ongoing
2015-2016
(throughout
project)
Ongoing
2015-2016
2017 and
beyond
Ongoing
Ongoing
2015
Police
Department
Staff efforts
Hennepin Co.
Position
City staff
MNDOT
Staff
CD and Comm.
Liaison
PD
Communications
Staff
Housing Rehab
Budget
Study Session Meeting of May 26, 2015 (Item No. 4)
Title: Draft Strategies/2-Year Action Plan for 2015-2025 City Council Goals & Priorities Page 17
- Other volunteer opportunities as they
arise
Maintain Public
Infrastructure and
Address Issues in order
to keep neighborhoods
safe and vibrant
- Pavement Management
- Graffiti abatement and prevention
program
- Connect the Park (sidewalks & trails)
- Utilize traffic committee to address
neighborhood traffic and parking
concerns
- Proactively address specific
neighborhood issues affecting
residents such as the flooding in 2014
Ongoing
As needed
Staff and
budgeting for
these projects
Utilize community events
and gathering spaces to
encourage citizen
engagement which
strengthens our
neighborhoods
- Park the Street 2015 and evaluate
future Park the Street Events
- Health in the Park Initiative:
Implement measures to sustain the
initiative of HIP once grant ends
- Parks & Open Spaces
- Promote, plan, partner, and
participate in Community Events such
as Parktacular, Fire Department Open
House, Children First Ice Cream
Social, etc.
- Community Gardens
- Explore new opportunities with
Discover St. Louis Park
2015 and
beyond?
2015-2016
Ongoing
Health in the
Park
BCBS Grant
Parks Dept.
Staff and budget
Study Session Meeting of May 26, 2015 (Item No. 4)
Title: Draft Strategies/2-Year Action Plan for 2015-2025 City Council Goals & Priorities Page 18
City Council Priorities/Goals 2015 to 2025:
Work Plan for 2015-2017
Name: Cindy Walsh
Goal: St. Louis Park has high quality community amenities and facilities.
Why is this important? High quality parks, open spaces and other community facilities and
amenities are building blocks for insuring a high quality of life and making St. Louis Park in the
marketplace as a great place to live.
Vision Consideration:
• St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.
• St. Louis Park is committed to promoting an integrating arts, culture and community aesthetics in
all City initiatives, including implementation where appropriate.
Strategies:
(What are the methods and
means you will take to
achieve this goal?)
Two Year Action Plan:
(What steps, tools or
tactics are you going to
take to achieve this
strategy?)
Timeline: Resources:
Health and Wellness
• Adding shade
amenities to park areas
• water sources to parks
for people and pet
usage
• community gardens
• inventory park areas
for additional
opportunities
• talk to
neighborhoods about
priorities
• partner with youth
associations at our
annual meetings with
them.
• 2105 plan
and
discussions
• 2016 input
into CIP
• CIP
• partnerships
with youth
associations
Extending Field Usage
• Adding lights
• Installing turf
• Running water to
buildings for drinking
fountains
• Expand bathroom
accessibility with
extended hours
• Enhancing
partnerships with
public & private
schools and agencies
• Assess which park
areas could benefit
from lights (athletic
areas, trails, dog
parks)
• Coordinate with IT
and Engineering on
projects in the area
• 2015
Work with
users &
staff on
desired
areas
• CIP
• Youth
Associations
• Hennepin
County youth
sports grant
Additional Amentias
• WHNC Master Plan
• Archery Range
• Disc Golf
• 2015 hire consultant
for WHNC master
plan
• Assess park & open
*2015 Assessment
of spaces
*2016 work with
planners/architects
• CIP
• Donations
• Hennepin
County youth
Study Session Meeting of May 26, 2015 (Item No. 4)
Title: Draft Strategies/2-Year Action Plan for 2015-2025 City Council Goals & Priorities Page 19
• Larger Dog Park
• Outdoor aquatic park
entrance
• Expand Community
gardens
• Outdoor Refrigerated
ice
space areas that
could include
additional amenities
• Neighborhood &
Community meetings
for park
improvements
to see if possible sports grant
•
Study Session Meeting of May 26, 2015 (Item No. 4)
Title: Draft Strategies/2-Year Action Plan for 2015-2025 City Council Goals & Priorities Page 20
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: May 26, 2015
Discussion Item: 5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Update on Organizational Culture Initiatives
RECOMMENDED ACTION: None – The purpose of this discussion it to allow the City
Manager to update the Council on specific actions and initiatives being undertaken to enhance
and grow the City of St. Louis Park organizational culture.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
SUMMARY: For over a year now I have been leading a conversation with all city employees
about our culture and the critical importance that a healthy organizational culture represents.
Whether the culture is good or bad, healthy or sick, every organization that exists has one. The
most important thing a leader of any organization needs to attend to is the culture of their
organization. Why is this important? Because organizational culture drives everything in terms
of the organization being successful. Culture is about how employees think and feel about their
jobs, their mindset and attitude when they come to work every day, and the behaviors they
exhibit when interacting with coworkers or customers. It’s extremely important that the leader
understand the culture that exists in their organization, and take action to make sure that current
and future employees understand what is expected of them when it comes to culture and how
they do their jobs.
At the study session I will provide an overview of what we have done and where we are headed
in ensuring our culture stays strong and healthy.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: None
Prepared by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: May 26, 2015
Written Report: 6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: April 2015 Monthly Financial Report
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required at this time.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
SUMMARY: The Monthly Financial Report provides a summary of General Fund revenues
and departmental expenditures and a comparison of budget to actual throughout the year.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Actual expenditures should generally run
about 33% of the annual budget in April. General Fund expenditures are under through April by
3% at approximately 29.8% of the adopted budget. Revenues are harder to measure in this same
way due to the timing of when they are received, examples of which include property taxes and
State aid payments (Police & Fire, DOT/Highway User Tax, PERA Aid, etc.).
There continue to be very few variances through April. License and permit revenue is at 50.3%
of budget due to that over 90% or $728,000 of the 2015 business and liquor license payments
have been collected, which is consistent with previous years. Permit revenue is at 37% through
April.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Summary of Revenues & Expenditures
Prepared by: Darla Monson, Senior Accountant
Reviewed by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller
Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Summary of Revenues & Expenditures - General Fund As of April 30, 2015 20152015201320132014201420152015 Balance YTD Budget BudgetAudited BudgetAudited BudgetApr YTD Remaining to Actual %General Fund Revenues: General Property Taxes20,657,724$ 21,987,968$ 21,157,724$ 21,176,542$ 22,364,509$ -$ 22,364,509$ 0.00% Licenses and Permits2,481,603 3,069,088 2,691,518 3,413,682 3,248,158 1,632,941 1,615,217 50.27% Fines & Forfeits335,150 311,882 320,150 369,545 320,200 73,377 246,823 22.92% Intergovernmental1,300,191 2,031,355 1,282,777 1,423,642 1,292,277 317,981 974,296 24.61% Charges for Services1,837,976 1,779,259 1,857,718 1,852,274 1,907,292 457,075 1,450,217 23.96% Miscellaneous Revenue1,092,381 1,067,210 1,112,369 1,302,160 1,196,018 334,784 861,234 27.99% Transfers In1,816,563 1,805,223 1,837,416 1,827,564 1,851,759 612,253 1,239,506 33.06% Investment Earnings150,000 14,180 150,000 119,831 140,000 - 140,000 0.00% Other Income36,650 10,756 17,950 13,306 17,900 1,934 15,966 10.80% Use of Fund Balance286,325 - 286,325 0.00%Total General Fund Revenues29,708,238$ 32,076,921$ 30,427,622$ 31,498,546$ 32,624,438$ 3,430,344$ 29,194,094$ 10.51%General Fund Expenditures: General Government: Administration877,099$ 890,883$ 939,391$ 980,087$ 979,183$ 321,085$ 658,098$ 32.79% Accounting827,320 819,458 876,216 873,987 912,685 285,777 626,908 31.31% Assessing543,855 543,202 559,749 560,979 602,299 194,152 408,147 32.24% Human Resources678,988 731,634 693,598 788,823 805,929 269,030 536,899 33.38% Community Development1,094,517 1,090,213 1,151,467 1,118,444 1,245,613 404,161 841,452 32.45% Facilities Maintenance1,074,920 1,058,127 1,053,715 1,039,699 1,094,836 316,185 778,651 28.88% Information Resources1,770,877 1,597,993 1,456,979 1,406,187 1,468,552 429,819 1,038,733 29.27% Communications & Marketing201,322 170,013 566,801 562,063 635,150 164,163 470,987 25.85% Community Outreach8,185 (22,450) 8,185 6,680 24,677 5,739 18,938 23.26% Engineering303,258 296,383 506,996 223,491 492,838 108,795 384,043 22.08%Total General Government7,380,341$ 7,175,456$ 7,813,097$ 7,560,440$ 8,261,762$ 2,498,906$ 5,762,856$ 30.25% Public Safety: Police7,443,637$ 7,225,579$ 7,571,315$ 7,769,592$ 8,511,557$ 2,719,808$ 5,791,749$ 31.95% Fire Protection3,330,263 3,246,162 3,458,161 3,535,716 3,722,396 1,195,399 2,526,997 32.11% Inspectional Services1,928,446 1,932,021 2,006,200 1,867,618 2,139,325 618,555 1,520,770 28.91%Total Public Safety12,702,346$ 12,403,762$ 13,035,676$ 13,172,927$ 14,373,278$ 4,533,761$ 9,839,517$ 31.54% Operations & Recreation: Public Works Administration393,054$ 288,207$ 222,994$ 236,304$ 232,437$ 64,392$ 168,045$ 27.70% Public Works Operations2,698,870 2,720,563 2,625,171 2,571,496 2,763,735 788,120 1,975,615 28.52% Organized Recreation1,280,117 1,256,678 1,290,038 1,277,046 1,304,470 331,419 973,051 25.41% Recreation Center1,449,930 1,501,627 1,543,881 1,561,224 1,591,115 376,278 1,214,837 23.65% Park Maintenance1,431,825 1,424,139 1,445,813 1,412,612 1,550,033 457,841 1,092,192 29.54% Westwood520,554 503,309 531,853 508,576 564,055 173,147 390,908 30.70% Environment430,876 434,297 433,750 379,193 472,049 78,113 393,936 16.55% Vehicle Maintenance1,240,325 1,268,559 1,285,489 1,323,358 1,333,520 391,172 942,348 29.33%Total Operations & Recreation9,445,551$ 9,397,379$ 9,378,989$ 9,269,808$ 9,811,414$ 2,660,483$ 7,150,931$ 27.12% Non-Departmental: General -$ 256,627$ 4,000$ 7,562$ -$ 13,147$ (13,147)$ 0.00% Transfers Out- 60,000 - 1,050,000 - - - 0.00% Tax Court Petitions180,000 53,345 195,860 13,834 177,984 - 177,984 0.00%Total Non-Departmental180,000$ 369,972$ 199,860$ 1,071,396$ 177,984$ 13,147$ 164,837$ 7.39%Total General Fund Expenditures29,708,238$ 29,346,569$ 30,427,622$ 31,074,572$ 32,624,438$ 9,706,297$ 22,918,141$ 29.75%Study Session Meeting of May 26, 2015 (Item No. 6) Title: April 2015 Monthly Financial ReportPage 2
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: May 26, 2015
Written Report: 7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Update on SWLRT Station Area Form-Based Code
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action at this time. The purpose of this item is to provide an
update on the development of the Form-Based Code (FBC).
POLICY CONSIDERATION: No policy consideration at this time.
SUMMARY: The City is developing a FBC as a tool to encourage transit-oriented development
around the SWLRT stations and received a Metropolitan Council Livable Communities grant in July
of 2013 for this purpose. Staff has been working with our consultant, Leslie Oberholtzer, and a work
group on creating and revising the FBC. The City has now received a second draft of the FBC and is
planning to begin further outreach and review with the Planning Commission, City Council, property
owners and the general public.
So far, the City has held two community workshops, which included an image preference survey
(IPS) to gather public input on preferences for building forms and their relation to the street. An
online version of the IPS was also conducted, where the public could vote for images they liked and
provide comments on what they liked, or disliked, about a certain image. The results of the IPS, in
conjunction with previous station area planning efforts, including the Southwest Investment
Framework, Elmwood Study, Beltline Design Guidelines and Louisiana Station Area Plan, were used
to inform the regulations established in the FBC.
Staff have scheduled a study session with the Planning Commission for June 3 and tentatively
scheduled time on the City Council’s June 8 study session agenda. Staff would like to review the
intent of the FBC, how it works, and present several policy questions to the Council. Leslie will join
us for this meeting. Staff are also working on scheduling a meeting with property owners on June 9,
and throughout the month, with a public open house on June 23.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: $25,000 City Match.
($125,000 total budget with $100,000 from the Metropolitan Council + $25,000 City Match.)
VISION CONSIDERATION:
1. St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.
2. St. Louis Park is committed to promoting and integrating arts, culture and community aesthetics
in all City initiatives, including implementation where appropriate.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: None
Prepared by: Ryan Kelley, Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: May 26, 2015
Written Report: 8
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Inclusionary Housing Policy Review
RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. This report is intended to provide Council
with a draft Policy of an affordable housing strategy that would require the inclusion of
affordable housing units in multi-unit market rate residential developments receiving financial
assistance from the City.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the proposed Policy reflect Council’s intent to adopt an
inclusionary housing strategy for promoting the creation of affordable housing units in the
community?
SUMMARY: In the fall of 2014, staff presented Council with a proposed framework for the
creation of a strategy that would require the inclusion of affordable housing units in new market
rate multi-unit residential developments receiving financial assistance from the City. The
Council supported the framework and proposed strategy and directed staff to work with MN
Challenge to develop a draft Inclusionary Housing Policy for the City. The purpose of the MN
Challenge Project, a joint effort between the Center for Urban and Regional Affairs, the Housing
Preservation Project and the McKnight Foundation, is to identify practical ways to reduce the
cost of developing affordable housing.
A draft Policy was presented to Council at the March 23 Study Session for review and comment.
Based on the Council’s comments, the following changes have been made to the Policy:
• The “Payment in Lieu” waiver option was eliminated, and
• The required number of affordable dwelling units within a residential project subject to
this policy was revised as follows:
I. Rental Projects:
1. At least ten percent (10%) of the units shall be affordable for households at sixty
percent (60%) Area Median Income (AMI), or
2. At least eight percent (8%) of the units shall be at available affordable for
households at fifty percent (50%) Area Median Income.
The 50% affordability option was added in response to Council’s desire to create units at a
greater affordability level. Definitions were also added defining affordable housing and financial
assistance.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and
diverse housing stock.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Draft Inclusionary Housing Policy
Prepared by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of May 26, 2015 (Item No. 8) Page 2
Title: Inclusionary Housing Policy Review
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: In August 2014, Council adopted revised Housing Goals. The revised goals
address the City’s commitment to promoting quality multi-family development and promoting
affordable housing options for low and moderate income households. The Council discussed
options for promoting the creation of affordable housing in new multi-family residential
developments and directed staff to develop a strategy that would require the inclusion of
affordable housing units in new market rate multi-unit residential developments receiving
financial assistance from the City.
At a subsequent meeting, staff presented a framework for an Inclusionary Housing Policy that
would apply to market rate multi-unit developments receiving financial assistance from the City.
Staff also informed Council that the MN Challenge Project had contacted the City and offered to
provide technical assistance and support in the development of an Inclusionary Housing Policy
for St. Louis Park. The purpose of the MN Challenge, a joint effort between the Center for
Urban and Regional Affairs, the Housing Preservation Project and McKnight Foundation is to
identify practical ways to reduce the cost of developing affordable housing.
The Council supported the framework and general criteria in the proposed strategy and directed
staff to work with MN Challenge to develop a draft Inclusionary Housing Policy for the City.
A draft Policy was presented to Council at the March 23 Study Session for review and comment.
Based on Council’s comments, the following revisions have been made to the Policy:
• The “Payment in Lieu” waiver option was eliminated, and
• The required number of affordable dwelling units within a residential project subject to
this policy was revised as follows:
I. Rental Projects:
1. At least ten percent (10%) of the units shall be affordable for households at
sixty percent (60%) Area Median Income (AMI), or
2. At least eight percent (8%) of the units shall be at affordable for households at
fifty percent (50%) Area Median Income.
The 50% affordability option was added in response to Council’s desire to create units at a
greater affordability level. Definitions were also added defining affordable housing and financial
assistance.
Draft Inclusionary Affordable Housing Policy - Key Components:
Purpose: The purpose of the “Policy” is to require the inclusion of affordable units in new
market rate multi-unit residential developments that receive financial assistance from the City.
I. The proposed “Policy” will allow the income and affordability requirements to be
fulfilled in the following ways:
1. On-site development of units within the proposed market rate ownership or rental
residential development; or
2. Development of income and rent restricted rental units at another site approved by the
City.
Study Session Meeting of May 26, 2015 (Item No. 8) Page 3
Title: Inclusionary Housing Policy Review
II. Affordability Elements:
1. Affordability Level: Rental: 10% of units at 60% area median income (AMI), or
8% of units at 50% AMI,
Ownership: 10% of units at 80% AMI
*60% and 50% affordability for rental units is consistent with affordability level
requirements for the federally funded affordable housing Tax Credit Program.
2. Length of Affordability Requirement: A minimum of 25 years.
3. Bedroom Mix of Affordable Units: The bedroom unit type of the affordable units will
be reflective of the development’s market rate units and will be distributed throughout
the development.
4. Building Size: The “Policy” will be applicable to buildings that have 10 or more
units.
5. Tenant Eligibility: Rental affordable dwelling units shall be rented only to income
eligible families during the period of affordability. An income eligible family may
remain in the rental inclusionary dwelling unit for additional rental periods as long as
the income of the family does not exceed one-hundred twenty percent (120%) of the
applicable AMI.
The draft Policy was presented to the Housing Authority Board for their review and comment.
The Board supported the proposed changes and had no further comments.
NEXT STEPS: Provided the Council supports the Policy as revised, the final draft will be
presented at a future City Council meeting for Council approval and adoption. Following
approval of the Policy, staff will continue to work with the MN Challenge Project to develop a
plan and procedures to guide program implementation.
1
I. Inclusionary Housing Policy
This Policy promotes high quality housing located in the community for households with
a variety of income levels, ages and sizes in order to meet the City's goal of preserving and
promoting economicall y diverse housing options in our community.
The City recognizes the need to provide affordable housing to households of a broad range
of income levels in order to maintain a diverse population and to provide housing for those who
live or work in the City. Without intervention, the trend toward rising housing prices in new
developments will continue to increase. As a result, this Policy is being adopted to ensure
that a reasonable proportion of each new development receiving City financial assistance
include units affordable to low and moderate income households and working families.
The requirements set forth in this Policy further the City’s Housing Goals and the City’s
Comprehensive Plan to create and preserve affordable housing opportunities. These
requirements are intended to provide a structure for participation by both the public and private
sectors in the production of affordable housing.
II. Applicability and Minimum Project Size
Market Rate Multi-Unit Development Receiving City Financial Assistance
This Policy applies to market rate multi-unit residential developments that receive
financial assistance from the City and includes:
(1) new developments that create at least 10 multi-family dwelling units; or
(2) any mixed use building that creates at least 10 multi-family dwelling units; or
(3) renovation or reconstruction of an existing building that contains multi-
family dwelling units that includes at least 10 dwelling; or
(4) any change in use of all or part of an existing building from a non-
residential use to a residential use that includes at least 10 dwelling units.
III. Affordable Dwelling Units
General requirement
A development that is subject to this Policy shall provide a number of affordable dwelling units
equal to at least eight (8%) to ten percent (10%) of the total number of dwelling units in the
development. The units designated as affordable will be subject to the requirements listed
below.
Study Session Meeting of May 26, 2015 (Item No. 8)
Title: Draft Inclusionary Housing Policy Page 4
2
Calculation of units required.
(1) For development of multi-family dwelling units:
A. The required number of Affordable Dwelling Uni ts is based on the total
number of dwelling units that are approved by the City.
B. To calculate the number of Affordable Dwelling Units required in a
development the total number of approved Dwelling Units shall be
multiplied by eight percent (8%) or ten percent (10%) depending on the
affordability standard. If the final calculation includes a fraction, the
fraction of a unit shall be rounded to the nearest whole number.
C. If an occupied property with existing dwelling units is remodeled
and/or expanded, the number of affordable Dwelling Units shall be
based on the total number of units following completion of
renovation/expansion. At least eight percent (8%) or ten percent (10%)
shall be affordable, depending on the affordability standard. Affordability Level
The required affordable dwelling units within a residential project subject to this policy shall
meet an income eligibility and rent affordability standard for the term of the restriction as
follows:
(1) Rental Projects:
A. At least ten percent (10%) of the units shall be affordable for households
at sixty percent (60%) Area Median Income (AMI), or
B. At least eight percent (8%) of the units shall be at available affordable for
households at fifty percent (50%) Area Median Income.
(2) For-Sale Projects:
A. At least ten percent of the units shall be affordable for households at
eighty percent (80%) Area Median Income (AMI).
Rent and Sale Price Level
Rental Unit: The monthly rental price for affordable dwelling units shall include rent and utility
costs and shall be based on fifty percent (50%) and/or sixty percent (60%) for the metropolitan
area that includes St. Louis Park adjusted for bedroom size and calculated annually by Minnesota
Housing for establishing rent limits for the Housing Tax Credit Program.
For-Sale Projects: The qualifying sale price for an owner-occupied affordable dwelling unit
shall include property taxes, homeowner’s insurance, principal payment and interest, private
mortgage insurance, monthly ground lease, and shall be based on eighty percent (80%) AMI for
the metropolitan area that includes St. Louis Park adjusted for bedroom size and calculated
annually by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Study Session Meeting of May 26, 2015 (Item No. 8)
Title: Draft Inclusionary Housing Policy Page 5
3
Period of Affordability
In developments subject to this Policy, the period of affordability for the affordable dwelling units
shall be at least twenty-five (25) years.
Location of Affordable Dwelling Units
Except as otherwise specifically authorized by this Policy, the Affordable Dwelling
Units shall be located within the development.
IV. Standards for Inclusionary Rental Units Size and Design of Affordable Units
The size and design of the affordable dwelling units should be consistent and comparable with
the market rate units in the rest of the project and is subject to the approval of the City. The
interior of affordable dwelling units do not need to be identical to the market rate units but if
units are smaller than the other units with the same number of bedrooms in the development, City
approval must be obtained.
Exterior/Interior appearance.
The exterior materials and design of the affordable dwelling units in any development subject to
these regulations shall be indistinguishable in style and quality with the market rate units in the
development. The interior finish and quality of construction of the affordable dwelling units
shall at a minimum be comparable to entry level rental or ownership housing in the City.
Construction of the affordable dwelling units shall be concurrent with construction of market-
rate dwelling units
V. Integration of Affordable Dwelling Units
Distribution of affordable housing units.
The affordable dwelling units shall be incorporated into the overall project unless expressly
allowed to be located in a separate building or a different location approved by the City
Council. Affordable dwelling units shall be distributed throughout the building.
Number of bedrooms in the affordable units.
The affordable dwelling units shall have a number of bedrooms in the approximate proportion as
the market rate units. The mix of unit types, both bedroom and accessible units, of the affordable
dwelling units shall be approved by the City.
Tenants
Rental affordable dwelling units shall be rented only to income eligible families during the
period of affordability. An income eligible family may remain in the affordable dwelling unit for
Study Session Meeting of May 26, 2015 (Item No. 8)
Title: Draft Inclusionary Housing Policy Page 6
4
additional rental periods as long as the income of the family does not exceed one-hundred twenty
percent (120%) of the applicable AMI.
VI. Alternatives to On-Site Development of Affordable Dwelling Units
This section provides alternatives to the construction of affordable dwelling units onsite as
a way to comply with this Policy. The alternatives are listed in subsection (3), below.
(1) The alternatives must be:
A. Approved by the City Council, and
B. Agreed to by the applicant in an Affordable Housing Performance
Agreement.
C. Applicant must show evidence acceptable to the City that a formal
commitment to the proposed alternative is in place.
(2) This Section does not apply unless the applicant demonstrates:
A. The alternative provides an equivalent or greater amount of
Affordable Dwelling Units in a way that the City determines
better achieves the goals, objectives and policies of the city’s
Housing Goals and Comprehensive Plan than providing them on-
site; and
B. Will not cause the City to incur any net cost as a result of the
alternative compliance mechanism.
(3) If the conditions in (2) are met, the City may approve one or more of the following
options to providing Affordable Dwelling Units that are required by this Policy.
A. Dedication of Existing Units: Restricting existing dwelling units
which are approved by the City as suitable affordable housing dwelling
units through covenants, contractual arrangements, or resale
restrictions. The City shall determine whether the form and content of
the restrictions comply with this Policy. Off-site units shall be located
within the City of St. Louis Park. The restriction of such existing units
must result in the creation of units that are of equivalent quality, and size
of the permanently Affordable Dwelling Units which would have been
constructed on-site if this alternative had not been utilized.
B. Offsite construction of affordable dwelling units within the City.
Offsite construction of units should be located in proximity to public
transit service at a site approved by the City.
C. Participation in the construction of affordable dwelling units by
Study Session Meeting of May 26, 2015 (Item No. 8)
Title: Draft Inclusionary Housing Policy Page 7
5
another developer on a different site within the City.
D. An alternative proposed by the applicant that directly provides or
enables the provision of affordable housing units within the City. The
alternative must be approved by the City and made a condition of
approval of the Affordable Housing Performance Agreement.
VII. Affordable Housing Plan
(1) Applicability
Developments that are subject to this Policy shall include an Affordable Housing Plan
as described below. An Affordable Housing Plan describes how the developer
complies with each of the applicable requirements of this Policy.
(2) Approval
A. The Affordable Housing Plan shall be approved by the City.
B. Minor modifications to the plan are subject to approval by the City
Manager. Major modifications are subject to approval by the City
Council. Items that are considered major and minor will be designated
in the Affordable Housing Plan.
(3) Contents.
The Affordable Housing Plan shall include at least the following:
A. General information about the nature and scope of the
development subject to these regulations.
B. For requests to an alternative to on-site provision of affordable housing,
evidence that the proposed alternative will further affordable housing
opportunities in the City to an equivalent or greater extent than
compliance with the otherwise applicable on-site requirements of this
Policy.
C. The total number of market rate units and affordable dwelling units in
the development.
D. The floor plans for the affordable dwelling units showing the number of
bedrooms and bathrooms in each Unit.
E. The approximate square footage of each affordable dwelling unit and
average square foot of market rate unit by types.
F. Building floor plans and site plans showing the location of each
affordable dwelling unit.
Study Session Meeting of May 26, 2015 (Item No. 8)
Title: Draft Inclusionary Housing Policy Page 8
6
G. The pricing for each affordable ownership dwelling unit. The pricing of
each unit shall be determined at time of approval. At time of sale thi s
price may be adjusted if there has been a change in the median income
or a change in the formulas used in this ordinance.
H. The order of completion of market rate and affordable dwelling units.
I. Documentation and specifications regarding the exterior appearance,
materials and finishes of the development for each of the affordable
dwelling units illustrating that the appearance of affordable units are
comparable to the appearance of the market-rate units.
J. An Affordable Dwelling Unit Management Plan documenting policies
and procedures for administering the affordable dwelling units in
accordance with the Affordable Housing Performance Agreement.
K. Any and all other information that the City Manager may require that
is needed to achieve the Council’s affordable housing goals.
VIII. Recorded Agreements, Conditions and Restrictions
(1) An Affordable Housing Performance Agreement shall be executed between the City
and a Developer, in a form approved by the City Attorney, based on the Affordable
Housing Plan described in Section VII, which formally sets forth development
approval and requirements to achieve Affordable Housing in accordance with this
policy and location criteria. The Agreement shall identify:
a. the location, number, type, and size of affordable housing units to be constructed;
b. sales and/or rental terms; occupancy requirements;
c. a timetable for completion of the units; and
d. restrictions to be placed on the units to ensure their affordability and any terms
contained in the approval resolution by the City as applicable.
(2) The applicant or owner shall execute any and all documents deemed necessary b y
the City Manager, including, without limitation, restrictive covenants and other
related instruments, to ensure the affordabilit y of the affordable housing units in
accordance with this Policy.
(3) The applicant or owner must prepare and record all documents, restrictions,
easements, covenants, and/or agreements that are specified by the City as conditions
of approval of the application prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit for
any development subject to this Policy.
(4) Documents described above shall be recorded in the Hennepin County Registry of
Deeds as appropriate.
Study Session Meeting of May 26, 2015 (Item No. 8)
Title: Draft Inclusionary Housing Policy Page 9
7
Definitions
1. Affordable Dwelling Unit: The required affordable dwelling units within a residential
project subject to this policy shall meet an income eligibility and rent affordability
standard for the term of the restriction as follows:
(1) Rental Projects:
A. At least ten percent (10%) of the units shall be affordable for households
at sixty percent (60%) Area Median Income (AMI), or
B. At least eight percent (8%) of the units shall be at available affordable for
households at fifty percent (50%) Area Median Income.
(2) For-Sale Projects:
A. At least ten percent of the units shall be affordable for households at
eighty percent (80%) Area Median Income (AMI).
2. Financial Assistance: The Inclusionary Affordable Housing Policy applies to all new and
renovated multifamily residential buildings receiving City financial assistance.
Financial Assistance is defined as funds derived from the City and includes but is not
limited to the following:
A. City of St. Louis Park
B. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
C. Housing Rehabilitation Fund
D. Reinvestment Assistance Program
E. Revenue Bonds (private activity bonds are negotiable)
F. Tax Increment Financing (TIF) & Tax Abatement
G. Housing Authority (HA) Funds
H. Land Writedowns
3. Affordable Housing Plan: A plan that documents policies and procedures for
administering the affordable dwelling units in accordance with the Affordable Housing
Performance Agreement.
4. Affordable Housing Performance Agreement: Agreement between the City and the
developer which formally sets forth development approval and requirements to achieve
Affordable Housing in accordance with this policy.
Study Session Meeting of May 26, 2015 (Item No. 8)
Title: Draft Inclusionary Housing Policy Page 10